Byzantine Catholics

[Gideon]

What's the story with the eastern catholics? I was told they are Orthodox in union with Rome by a Father in the local eastern catholic parish....how are they different then Orthodox? They seem to care little for the Pope of Rome other then on paper. Any thoughts?

[Hermit]

As a Roman Catholic, all I've heard is that they retain the form of their Eastern worship, liturgy etc, but submit to the authority of the Pope.

here is an explanation of the Byzantine Catholic Church: http://www.byzcath.org/Faith-and-Worship/Who-Are-Byzantine-Catholics.htm

[Kosta]

Orthodox in union with Rome? Doesnt surprise me that a uniate "bishop" would put it that way. Uniates walk a tightrope towing the line between Orthodoxy and papism. To be all things to both the Orthodox and to the romans. Many uniate clerics are paid handsomely by the vatican this is the real reason of how they came to be. Depending on the level of latinization they believe all the things the romans do OR they can be optional.

[Xristoforos McAvoy]

The Eastern Catholic Churches have sufferred a great deal to remain in communion with Rome. Their formation was largely political, due to treaties of trade with France or the Polish empire controlling their jurisdiction. They have not really solved very many of the theological differences between the Orthodox and the post-schism Western Church. In my opinion, because of that they tend to be "confused Churches" in certain areas. Moreso than the Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

http://ancientfaithradio.com/archives/2005/East_meets_East-Archive.mp3
This is a wonderful interview between Fr. Schroedel (Orthodox) and Fr. Tom Loya (Eastern Catholic) I think this is a great introduction to the strengths and weaknesses of the E. Catholics.

Having said this, I do learn a lot from the Eastern Catholics. They are a force to be reckoned with, particularly the Melkite and Maronites from Lebanon & Syria. (My mother grew up in Beirut) Even though officially they are Catholic, In my heart I personally feel that they are Orthodox Churches, albeit in a compromised sometimes latinized position.

Visit the Eastern Catholic Churches and find out.

I forgot to mention, according to the "balamand statement" Rome now acknowledges that the creation of Eastern Catholic Churches was a mistake, and that it can not happen anymore in the future as it was a false way of "stealing members" from the Mother Orthodox Churches. However since many Eastern Catholics are weary to leave communion with Rome having fought hard to remain in it for so long, they are not about to cease to exist without great challenges. Ideally it would be nice if they could fold back into the Orthodox Mother Churches at this time, but life is not perfect is it.

[Yeshua Pineault]

Peace and God Bless,

Each church has its own unique context in which it's union with Rome was formed. For example, the Maronites claim that they have never broken union with Rome, despite their isolation. Others, as Br. McAvoy stated prior to, were formed by political context.

Differences between the Orthodox are subjective to each church. In all, each church isn't allowed to reject Latin theology, just allowed not to adopt it. For example, the Byzantine Catholics and Melkite Catholics do not acknowledge the concept of original sin, purgatory, the immaculate conception nor the filioque. The Maronites and Syro-Malabar, though, do acknowledge the immaculate conception and filioque, and depending on the part of the world it would seem, purgatory. Yet even this isn't a static generalization, for example, I come from a very traditional Maronite community and was not raised with many of the Western concepts that the Western Maronite Church has seemed to adopt. All churches do have one belief in common; the primacy of Rome. All also, to some degree or another, have an amount of Latinization, or Latin traditions and beliefs adopted or forced on that particular church.

The issue arises how can one acknowledge this primacy yet not accept the beliefs that come from it. Thus people get the rather touchy with the statement of "Orthodox in communion with Rome." How are they Catholic if they do not believe in the tenants that make Roman Catholics Roman Catholics and how are they Orthodox if according to Holy Orthodoxy primacy of Rome of today is anything but orthodox. This is the Eastern Papal Catholic question.

May the Holy Yoldath Aloho Bless and Protect

[Raymond Maxwell Spiotta]

All churches do have one belief in common; the primacy of Rome.

Would not common concurrence on the matter of the Roman Pontiff's primacy (at least in the sense that that Pontiff would have himself be viewed as possessing it) entail an acceptance of such doctrines as Purgatory & the Immaculate Conception, inasmuch as these matters have been ratified ex cathedra by the same?

The ideal of the Eastern Rite Catholic is to exist, to the greatest degree possible, as a pre-schism Catholic of any of the then-communicant Patriarchates whether Constanopolitan, Antiochian, Alexandrian, Cyprian &c. This would entail a 100% acceptance of the Catholic Faith as defined by the Apostolic See. One remains faithful to the liturgical rites of one's fathers, and to the ancient & apostolic rights of the See of Rome, from which no deviation in matters of faith or morals is permissable.

This is at least the type of Byzantine Catholic I attempt to be.

[Xristoforos McAvoy]

The ideal of the Westerm Rite Orthodox is also to exist, to the greatest degree possible, as a pre-schism Roman Catholic of the then-communicant Patriarchate of Rome.

I attempt to be an Ancient Roman Catholic which holds the beliefs of the pre-schism Roman Catholic Church. No deviation in matters of faith or morals is permissable from Rome only when the Ecumenical council agrees, the Ecumenical councils have not agreed. Presently the ancient & apostolic rights of the See of Rome are unacknowledged by the modern See of Rome.

[Yeshua Pineault]

Would not common concurrence on the matter of the Roman Pontiff's primacy (at least in the sense that that Pontiff would have himself be viewed as possessing it) entail an acceptance of such doctrines as Purgatory & the Immaculate Conception, inasmuch as these matters have been ratified ex cathedra by the same?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

This is the issue then, isn't it. If acknowledgment of Rome's primacy exists would not the definitions brought forth by Rome be subject to all who follow her, thus universal? Yet even Rome herself allows for such, for lack of a better term, "ignoring" of Latin Church theology. Eastern Papal Catholics are not required to necessarily accept Purgatory, they just can't reject it. A very strange and one might say hypocritical position, but apparently the price to pay for attempting to bridge East and West. For Western theology does not function in Eastern form. How can one accept the Immaculate Conception yet remain with the Eastern belief of "original sin?" How does one celebrate Divine Liturgy when the Roman Church places a sacrificial element instead of the orthodox (lowercase "o") thanksgiving, the former being the form and function of the Liturgy? These and other experiences are the challenges the Eastern Papal Catholics have to overcome and define. Being a Maronite or a Byzantine Catholic doesn't mean dressing up Eastern and having Western theology; one does not function fluidly within another.

Peace and God Bless

[Raymond Maxwell Spiotta]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

This is the issue then, isn't it. If acknowledgment of Rome's primacy exists would not the definitions brought forth by Rome be subject to all who follow her, thus universal? Yet even Rome herself allows for such, for lack of a better term, "ignoring" of Latin Church theology. Eastern Papal Catholics are not required to necessarily accept Purgatory, they just can't reject it. A very strange and one might say hypocritical position, but apparently the price to pay for attempting to bridge East and West. For Western theology does not function in Eastern form. How can one accept the Immaculate Conception yet remain with the Eastern belief of "original sin?" How does one celebrate Divine Liturgy when the Roman Church places a sacrificial element instead of the orthodox (lowercase "o") thanksgiving, the former being the form and function of the Liturgy? These and other experiences are the challenges the Eastern Papal Catholics have to overcome and define. Being a Maronite or a Byzantine Catholic doesn't mean dressing up Eastern and having Western theology; one does not function fluidly within another.

Peace and God Bless

You are mistaken in saying that Eastern Rite Catholics have no obligation to uphold the Roman doctrines of Purgatory, Original Sin & the Immaculate Conception. All of these have been infallibly defined and noone is permitted to deviate therefrom. I simply don't see where you come up with this notion that Rome lets her Eastern Rite children ignore her theology. Maybe that is the way your parish operates. If so, I think a problem exists there, for, as you say, such a stance would on Rome's part be very hypocritical.

As for dressing up Eastern & believing Western, I see no conflict, for the Catholic Faith is one anywhere you go. There is no need as an Eastern Catholic to express Catholic theology in Western terms; but there is a need to hold Catholic theology. Ss. Basil the Great & Gregory the Theologian certainly weren't using scholastic language in their explications of the Catholic Faith; but it was nonetheless the Catholic Faith they were explicating. "Eastern Theology" as you understand it seems to be that of the Orthodox so-called who have in fact deviated from the Faith of their fathers. There is no room to hold to these deviations as an Eastern Catholic, for they are no true or necessary developments of the divine science of the east, and they are certainly not Catholic inasmuch as they stand opposed to the sentence of the Oecumenical Councils & to the solemn definitions of the Bishop of Rome.

[Yeshua Pineault]

You are mistaken in saying that Eastern Rite Catholics have no obligation to uphold the Roman doctrines of Purgatory, Original Sin & the Immaculate Conception. All of these have been infallibly defined and noone is permitted to deviate therefrom. I simply don't see where you come up with this notion that Rome lets her Eastern Rite children ignore her theology. Maybe that is the way your parish operates. If so, I think a problem exists there, for, as you say, such a stance would on Rome's part be very hypocritical.

As for dressing up Eastern & believing Western, I see no conflict, for the Catholic Faith is one anywhere you go. There is no need as an Eastern Catholic to express Catholic theology in Western terms; but there is a need to hold Catholic theology. Ss. Basil the Great & Gregory the Theologian certainly weren't using scholastic language in their explications of the Catholic Faith; but it was nonetheless the Catholic Faith they were explicating. "Eastern Theology" as you understand it seems to be that of the Orthodox so-called who have in fact deviated from the Faith of their fathers. There is no room to hold to these deviations as an Eastern Catholic, for they are no true or necessary developments of the divine science of the east, and they are certainly not Catholic inasmuch as they stand opposed to the sentence of the Oecumenical Councils & to the solemn definitions of the Bishop of Rome.

My brother,

I do not know your situation but I can assure you that there exists a great amount of Eastern Papal Catholics who do live their lives not accepting infallible doctrines issued by Rome, be it patriarchs (I advise you to research the Melkites in this regard), bishops, priests, and laity. I am not trying to make a point of contention, I am just showing the puzzling situation we as Eastern Papal Catholics live as. I advise you yourself to look beyond your own parish, branch into the other churches. In fact, you are the first Byzantine Catholic I have met that has such a stance; I have known quite a few and their parishes. Also realize that I am a Maronite, one of the most Latinized of the Eastern Papal Catholics, and there is no Orthodox equivalent. Granted, I was raised in a staunchly traditional setting but this was theology taught by not only my family, priest and village nor am I saying what I said was my own personal belief. I have met Maronites on both sides of the spectrum, staunchly "traditional" and staunchly Latinized. I can 100% assure you that Rome allows what I speak. Have you listened to the link (http://ancientfaithradio.com/archive...st-Archive.mp3) that was posted earlier of a fellow Byzantine Catholic?

But I must defy a few of your claims. You speak that Eastern Theology does not conflict with Catholic theology. Remember, the Church of Rome is a western church and with that comes it's western theology. Eastern Papal Catholics, generally speaking, are new to the arena of doctrinal consideration, Rome was concerned about her theology, however she claimed it being universal. Eastern Theology is Eastern Theology, the Early Church Fathers of the Byzantine Catholics are the Early Church Fathers of the Orthodox, and they say the same thing. It is much more than dressing in Eastern Vestments. I already gave Divine Liturgy as an example. Some of the same issues that separate Holy Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental) and the Roman Church exist within the Catholic Church.

Peace and God Bless

[Raymond Maxwell Spiotta]

I do not know your situation but I can assure you that there exists a great amount of Eastern Papal Catholics who do live their lives not accepting infallible doctrines issued by Rome, be it patriarchs (I advise you to research the Melkites in this regard), bishops, priests, and laity.

I don't doubt it. Just as I do not doubt that countless Roman Rite Catholics pay absolutely no heed to the unmistakeble directives of their Mother Church regarding the unpermissibility of contraception. Since Vatican II it is not surprising to see Catholics of all stripes spurning the word of Rome, whether they be Latin or Eastern. This does not make their insubordination right; it simply makes it normal.

What is it specifically that the Melkite Patriarch has done or said which specifically pertains to the issue at hand?


Eastern Theology is Eastern Theology, the Early Church Fathers of the Byzantine Catholics are the Early Church Fathers of the Orthodox, and they say the same thing.

This is my point exactly. Taking also into consideration that the Early Church Fathers of the Uniates & Orthodox are also the Fathers of the Latins, it should follow that all have substantially the same theology inasmuch as they draw from the same sources. Obviously between the Orthodox & Catholics there does not exist doctrinal unanimity, & according to Rome's belief, this is due to the misunderstanding among the Eastern schismatics of their own Holy Fathers. Given that the Uniates have the same theological sources as the Latins & that by their very constitution they are obliged to accept the teaching of the Catholic Church, there stands nothing in their way to formulating their Catholic theology in the same vein as their Eastern Fathers did for 1000 years prior to the schism.

[Xristoforos McAvoy]

Spiotta is italian I think. Many of the converts to Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do not yet fully understand the Churches they have joined. To have spent ones whole life in a Church gives one a knowledge which is hard to replace.

Although it may be possible that nothing stands in the way of the modern western theology formulating itself to match the teachings of ancient western theology or present eastern theology, it has not yet done this and is a long way from doing it. Imagine the confusion it would give to the laity.


Taking also into consideration that the Early Church Fathers of the Uniates & Orthodox are also the Fathers of the Latins, it should follow that all have substantially the same theology inasmuch as they draw from the same sources.

Somehow in the period of collapse of western rome the Eastern Church did not have St. Augustine as a Church father. This alone is a big difference. Even if the west did have most of the same Church Fathers it has added on to what they said to such a degree that the theology is now very different.

[Raymond Maxwell Spiotta]

Many of the converts to Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do not yet fully understand the Churches they have joined.

Whatever the extent of my lack of practical knowledge concerning the Church I have joined, this much I know of it, that it is the Church of Christ, & is shepherded by His Vicar. Part of the reason I came to the Catholic Church was through a study of the Fathers, Eastern as well as Western. The Faith of the Eastern Fathers is the Catholic Faith, & it was seeing that which confirmed me in my resolve to be Catholic.


Although it may be possible that nothing stands in the way of the modern western theology formulating itself to match the teachings of ancient western theology or present eastern theology, it has not yet done this and is a long way from doing it. Imagine the confusion it would give to the laity.

Some clarifications are here called for. When you say that there is hypothetically nothing withstanding the formulation of 'modern western theology' so as to 'match the teachings of ancient western theology or present eastern theology' do you imply that Modern Western Theology is substantially different than that of Augustine, than that of Ambrose? Substantially different than that of S. Basil, Gregory the Theologian & S. John of Damascus? Because my contention is that it is not. The methods & manner of formulation are indeed different owing to the intervening influence of Anselmian & Thomistic scholasticism, but this is immaterial to the contention that the Faith of the Catholic Church today is that of the Catholic Church yesterday.


Even if the west did have most of the same Church Fathers it has added on to what they said to such a degree that the theology is now very different.

How so?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Friends,

Please keep in mind the following from the Discussion Community Terms of Use; especially Part II: Community Outline:



(c) The Monachos.net Discussion Community is not an interfaith forum for general discussions on Orthodoxy with respect to other Christian churches, denominations or religious faiths. This means that general discussions on, e.g., ‘Orthodoxy vs. Protestantism’ are beyond the purview, and conversations which transform to such points of focus will most often be terminated. The same holds true for inter-church discussions with respect to groups of common heritage, e.g. ‘Eastern Orthodoxy vs. Oriental Orthodoxy’. Discussions which occasionally compare doctrinal or practical issues across churches / traditions, and which do so explicitly for the purpose of attempting better to understand the patristic, monastic, liturgical and ecclesiastical heritage of the Church (rather than modern differences), are welcome; in such conversations, however, the over-arching theme of discussion under the above purview, and not simply expression of personal opinion or confessional comparison with Orthodoxy, is paramount.

Informative tid-bit While the Monachos.net Discussion Community is not the place for or inter-denominational or inter-faith discussion, there are other on-line fora which are. For links to such fora and lists, visit the Monachos.net Links Catalogue.


Please note the part of the outline underlined and italicized above. This forum is for the discussion of either Orthodox topics (Orthodox as defined by the terms of Use) or else of inter-faith issues which relate directly to Orthodoxy.

Thank you.

In Christ- Fr Raphael co-moderator