Roman Catholicism, Anglican Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy

[TheLittlestFlower]

Hello Pham!

I'm having a discussion about these three rites with a friend of mine. Can someone point me to resources about each rite and their beliefs in papal infallibility and transubstantiation? 

I listened to a Trent Horn podcast recently, and I have questions about the similarities and differences among all three.  Thanks!

[Nihil Obstat]

What do you mean when you say Anglican Catholicism?

[MarysLittleFlower]

Also sorry do you mean Eastern Catholicism? The Eastern Orthodox aren't Catholic and are not in communion with Rome - they have different beliefs on the Papacy. 

 But Eastern rite Catholics are. I assume you mean this, and Roman Catholicism, and maybe the Ordinariate where the Anglicans became Catholics but kept some things?

To answer your question, there are actually many Catholic rites one is Roman Catholic, and then there are a number of Eastern ones. (Eastern Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox :)). All the rites accept the Pope and are in communion with him, though they kept their liturgical and devotional traditions. 

I would also like to know how they view transubstantiation though. I'm guessing they don't reject it but just use different words (in the East they just didn't go to such detail about this point). But I'm guessing they don't reject it and its at least acceptable?

I mean Eastern Catholics also believe the doctrines yes? Maybe they just use their own words but have no problem with the ideas?

[TheLittlestFlower]

What do you mean when you say Anglican Catholicism?

I meant what MarysLittleFlower said :D Not Anglican Protestantism, but Ordinariate. 

Also sorry do you mean Eastern Catholicism? The Eastern Orthodox aren't Catholic and are not in communion with Rome - they have different beliefs on the Papacy. 

 But Eastern rite Catholics are. I assume you mean this, and Roman Catholicism, and maybe the Ordinariate where the Anglicans became Catholics but kept some things?

To answer your question, there are actually many Catholic rites one is Roman Catholic, and then there are a number of Eastern ones. (Eastern Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox :)). All the rites accept the Pope and are in communion with him, though they kept their liturgical and devotional traditions. 

I would also like to know how they view transubstantiation though. I'm guessing they don't reject it but just use different words (in the East they just didn't go to such detail about this point). But I'm guessing they don't reject it and its at least acceptable?

I mean Eastern Catholics also believe the doctrines yes? Maybe they just use their own words but have no problem with the ideas?

I think the podcast I listened to, which to be fair wasn't all that long, didn't go into too much detail regarding some specifics as you've pointed out here (and yes, I meant EC and not EO). 

I'm curious about the transubstantiation question, too. I heard recently that a staggering number of Catholics don't believe that the bread and wine are the physical body and blood of Christ. And down the rabbit hole we went ... lol

[MarysLittleFlower]

In the East they definitely do believe the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, - even if they don't use the word transubstantiation to describe it.  They do believe its literally physically Christ, still! the Catholics who don't believe it are the uncatechized ones I think. Both the West and the East believe in the Real Presence, but the West went into more detail defining it and going into the substance accidents distinction - which personally I like and find useful. I think Catholics are bound to agree with it even if they use Eastern terminology?

I'm guessing the Eastern Catholics accept it just don't use the word themselves, rather call it a mystery. But since they're Catholic I think they'd agree with it... I think they'd agree with the doctrine for sure. 

And Orthodox also believe in the Eucharist being literally Christ - but they might feel more strongly about calling it a mystery (rather than transubstantiation) than Eastern Catholics do. I don't know.

Personally I think the theology of transubstantiation makes sense and I fully agree with it.  

Edited August 12, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Benedictus]

Hello Pham!

I'm having a discussion about these three rites with a friend of mine. Can someone point me to resources about each rite and their beliefs in papal infallibility and transubstantiation? 

I listened to a Trent Horn podcast recently, and I have questions about the similarities and differences among all three.  Thanks!

All parts of the Catholic church hold to the same essential doctrine and dogma. It doesn't matter really what rite they use. A Roman, Eastern or Ordinariate rite church is still Catholic. They all 'officially' maintain the same line on those matters.

I meant what MarysLittleFlower said :D Not Anglican Protestantism, but Ordinariate. 

I think the podcast I listened to, which to be fair wasn't all that long, didn't go into too much detail regarding some specifics as you've pointed out here (and yes, I meant EC and not EO). 

I'm curious about the transubstantiation question, too. I heard recently that a staggering number of Catholics don't believe that the bread and wine are the physical body and blood of Christ. And down the rabbit hole we went ... lol

I was confused when you said Anglican Catholicism, as that actually exists in the Anglican church. But, for what it's worth, some Anglicans, especially those on the Catholic reform wing, do believe in transubstantiation. Less believe in papal infallibility, but more in a papal unity model (first among equals model).

Do Catholics believe in transubstantiation? I think most don't understand it, as it's not really explained on a regular basis. So a fair number, I'd suspect, probably would reject it based on ignorance rather than full knowledge. In terms of papal infallibility -  I don't think people understand the scope and application of it. They often assume it means the Pope can say or change a matter at a whim, on anything. Obviously this isn't the case. Again, I think it's an education issue.

The church holds positions across the board. But what people think, believe, do or say is, fairly simply, a more diverse and messy business. I think that can't really be avoided, but it can be tackled. But there will always be Catholics that don't affirm and assent to the all things. People are people afterall. Has it ever not been so?

[Benedictus]

nvm -  double post

Edited August 15, 2015 by Benedictus

[CoffeeCatholic]

small point- it is my understanding from discussion with Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that in this rite there is not a "moment" of change for the bread and wine.  In the Roman Rite, we understand that at the moment of the words +"This is my Body"+ etc, the bread becomes his body.  It's not so clear in Eastern Theology.

Something I'm coming to terms with lately is that Eastern theology is anything but clear.  They love mysteries and throw them into everything.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Yea .. I heard they believe it all starts when the priest asks the Holy Spirit to come, in the Eucharistic Prayer. The Latin rite defined it in a specific way.

However I'd imagine Eastern rite Catholics would still accept transubstantiation and specific doctrinal definitions just because the Catholic Church made them? They do follow their own Eastern traditions and liturgy.

Edited August 16, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[CoffeeCatholic]

yes and no.  Eastern Rite Catholics are bound by some dogma (like, I believe, the Immaculate conception) but are not necessarily bound by all Roman theology (the filioque, for example, has become optional for some rites in recent years, and I'm not sure how Eastern Catholic's view purgatory since it doesn't quite fit into their spirituality).  

However, it's a mystery.

[Catlick]

yes and no.  Eastern Rite Catholics are bound by some dogma (like, I believe, the Immaculate conception) but are not necessarily bound by all Roman theology (the filioque, for example, has become optional for some rites in recent years, and I'm not sure how Eastern Catholic's view purgatory since it doesn't quite fit into their spirituality).  

However, it's a mystery.

Really? I knew Rome turns a blind eye to heresy on a massive scale these days, but that they have formalized the option of heresy...

[cutenickname]

I am answering this because there was apparently no Anglican here 5 years ago.

The Anglican Communion does not have a systematic theology per se.

There is something called the 39 Articles which some individual national churches treat as binding on clergy, but no group to my knowledge considers them binding on the laity. The Episcopal Church in the US treats them as "historical documents of the Church" not a rule of faith.

Article 28 specifically denies transubstantiation and Eucharistic adoration, but affirms the Real Presence.

In modern Anglican practice, I have never met anyone, outside of the wild modernist fringe, who denies the presence of Christ in the Eucharist or is bothered by Eucharistic Adoration, there seems to be a divide over a more or less Roman understanding of transubstantiation vs a Lutheranish understanding that Christ is in amid, around, and under the bread.

I individually believe the Eucharist is that true and good body born of the Virgin Mary, becomes so during the words of consecration, and is rightly the object of adoration, love, worship, etc.

Generally Anglicans hold that the Anglican Church believes as she prays. The liturgy itself is 1) The Church's purpose 2) The source of her Catholicity 3) Her highest and indeed only binding theological statement.

The only sources I could point you to are the various books known as the Book of Common Prayer. Particularly the 1662 version, the 1928 Version, and the 1978.

 

[cutenickname]

I didn't read the part about Papal Infallibility.

Papal Primacy is a patristic doctrine. Relatively few Anglicans would deny it, outside of the extreme low church Evangelical wing of Anglicanism where people might actually believe the Holy Father is the Anti-Christ ex officio and Catholics, though Christian, are dangerously deceived, this is not a common belief even among Evangelical Anglicans, but it exists. 

Papal supremacy, Universal jurisdiction, and Infallibility probably only have about five adherents each in the whole communion.

Individually, I accept Petrine Primacy. Might accept universal jurisdiction, but not in the way Catholics understand it. Am inclined to vigorously oppose both supremacy and infallibility as understood by Rome, but heartily believe Rome is in matters of her core doctrines regarding the Sacraments, the Godhead, and Scripture indefectible; one could call this an accepting, but low view of Papal infallibility if one wanted. A kind of guarantee of inerrancy on both faith and morals, but limited to statements that clearly use some version of "proclaim, declare, define" language and not attempts at repeating what Rome understands to be re-statements of constant teaching, based on the objections that: 1 these are not always re-statements despite Rome's assertions that they are 2 even if they are barring an actual dogmatic definition by Pope or Council they cannot bind men's consciences.

That puts me in the very odd and uncomfortable position of accepting basically all of Rome's core teachings, but having a lower and more cynical view of Papal Authority on both faith and morals than one could hold in good conscience while still being in communion with the Holy Father who has a very high view indeed of his own authority.

I say these things neither to debate nor to convince. Just as attempts at outlining my position; which is very Romish, but still not actually there, yet.

Edited September 22, 2020 by cutenickname

[cutenickname]

If, and I am slow on the uptake, you mean the "ordinariate" not the Anglican communion; Catholics in the ordinariate believe what other Latin Rite Catholics believe; with no room for the kind of doctrinal wiggles Rome seems comfortable with from Eastern Rite Catholics (hint: I am pretty sure my view of the Papacy is higher than that of Melkite Patriarch for instance @Apotheounmight want to comment here since he keeps visiting us, but won't talk to us).

Edited September 22, 2020 by cutenickname