Eastern Rites

[ChildoftheCreator]

Hey, for those of you who are Eastern Rite Catholics, or I suppose anyone who is knowledgeable, what are the differences between the Rites? I understand that as a whole they have a different approach to theology than the Latin Rite. However, I am curious to know the differences between, say, the Melkite, Marionite, Byzantine, Ukrainian, etc.

[Formosus]

Well we are churches, not rites first off. Among the eastern churches, there are a variety of different types of theology and worship. Most of the eastern churches are those of the Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) tradition. But there are also those of the Syrian tradition (which includes both an east and west subset), the Armenian tradition, and the Alexandrian tradition. Each has its own peculiar theology and worship , but among the churches within a particular tradition you will find much in common. For instance the Ukrainian Greek Catholics and the Melkite Catholics are both byzantine churches and share the same liturgy, nearly the same calender, and theology. But the difference say between, the Ukrainian church and the Chaldean church would be much greater. The Chaldeans are an east syriac church and they have a very distinct christology that shows their roots from the Assyrian Church of the East. Their liturgy make almost no use of Icons, and they have a completely separate calender. Even among traditions though, there are sometimes differences. Such as western syrians (maronites and syrians) vs. Eastern Syrians (chaldeans). Even the maronites seem to hold a distinct theology on Christ's two wills (which in the past was confused by westerners to be monothelitism) but the Syrians do not hold such a view. It would take more expertise then I could dream of having to show the differences between each eastern church in comparison to each other .

[ChildoftheCreator]

Formosus, thanks for your reply and I apologize for calling Eastern Churches rites. I had thought that the Catholic Church was a Church and subcategories such as Latin or Byzantine were rites. I guess I was wrong. It must then be a lot like the Orthodox in that each separate section headed by a patriarch is known as a Church.
What exactly are rites within the structure of the Catholic Church? Also am I right in thinking that there are patriarchs in the different Churches? Or is there just a bishop that makes jurisdictional decisions? It be wonderful to know.

Also I was also looking at the other thread going on about original sin and it was mentioned that the eastern church holds the same faith as the Orthodox Church, yet is in communion with Rome as it was recognized by the church in the first millenium. How does communion work? Do you not have to believe in the same doctrinal concepts as those you are in communion with? Vatican I proclaimed that the pope was infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, which is clearly stepping beyond the bounds that he had within the first mellenium. How do the Eastern Churches reconcile with this and do they have different opinions over papal infallibility as far as you know?

[Formosus]

I apologize for how long this took. But I suggest you pick up (a library with inter library loan is a good bet) +Elias Zogby's book "We are all Schismatics" . It will help answer some of those questions.

The short answer is that if the teachings of the Roman church are in opposition to the Church of the first 1000 years of the Faith, then how can the Roman Church justify its positions?

[jeffpugh]

I should probably clarify some terms (which seem to be confused, unless I'm mistaken), theology isn't synonymous with doctrine, and Rite comes from "ritual", so it is essentially formula/procedure. Therefore, we Catholics all believe the same doctrines, but have different "viewpoints" (if I can say that, in absence of a better word at the moment) on the same GodMan, the Trinity, etc.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Formosus' post='1789597' date='Feb 23 2009, 07:39 PM']I apologize for how long this took. But I suggest you pick up (a library with inter library loan is a good bet) +Elias Zogby's book "We are all Schismatics" . It will help answer some of those questions.

The short answer is that if the teachings of the Roman church are in opposition to the Church of the first 1000 years of the Faith, then how can the Roman Church justify its positions?[/quote]
It is my opinion that the Roman Church is not in contradiction to the First Millenium Church, it has simply developped its understanding of Ecclesiological doctrines; see my posts in the Debate Table thread for more, it is my opinion that a First Millenium model can work for the Church while still having the doctrine of Papal infallibility; the doctrine is a developped understanding of what was actually going on in the Church during the First Millenium (ie, why it was that (old) Rome was considered the final appeal to guarantee unity)

it is a further definition of the ecumenical nature of the Petrine ministry. it does not mean that the Pope ought to micro-manage the autonomous sui juris Churches of the East, but that Rome has judicial authority to step in when it is necessary for Church unity.