francis@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Francis Ho) (04/17/91)
what is the difference between the Greek Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church?? f-- ____/\____* 531 West 113th St. NYC 10025 | Francis Ivanos Demma Ho / \ * francis@cunixc.bitnet / francis@cunixF.cc.columbia.edu /<()>\ * ...!rutgers!columbia!cunixF!francis /______\ * Columbia Center for Computing Activities (CUCCA) [I suspect the term is being used to mean the Greek church in communion with Rome. The eastern Orthodox churches are generally not in full communion with Rome. In many countries with Orthodox churches there are other groups that follow eastern traditions but retain communion with Rome. They are considered by Roman Catholics to be separate rites of a single Catholic Church. They are sometimes known as Uniate churches, but that term seems to have a negative connotation. --clh]
kmarko@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Kurt Marko) (04/21/91)
[Francis Ho asked: >what is the difference between the Greek Catholic Church and the >Roman Catholic Church?? I responded that it was one of the eastern churches that are in communion with Rome (and thus distinct from the more widely known eastern Orthodox churches), but which generally follow many of the same eastern traditions as the Orthodox churches. --clh] To clarify the above. The Orthodox Church (one Church, with several Patriarchates) is certainly not `in full communion with Rome.' The Roman church was at one time part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but slipped into schism, beginning about the 9th Century, and culminated in 1054. Unfortunately, the term `Catholic' has now been appropriated by the Roman church, causing some confusion. In America, Greek, or Byzantine Catholic churches are, as you mention above, Eastern Rite churches under the Roman church. They have their own Bishops, but are in `full communion' with the Pope. These uniate churches were started in Eastern Europe after the schism (13-15th Centuries) as a way for the Papacy to gain control over the Slavic regions by mimicking the `ritual' of Orthodoxy. Note that only the ritual is copied; the Eastern Rite churches share the same dogmatic and theological `innovations' as their Latin brethren. So, to address the original question...there are large `ritualistic' differences between the Roman Catholic church and its Uniate counterparts (the Byzantine, or Greek Catholic church [in America]; the Ukrainian Catholic church [in the USSR]), but they both hold to the same dogma (e.g. the filioque, Immaculate Conception, Papal Infalibility, etc.). In contrast, to the casual observer, the ritual of the uniate churches and the Orthodox church (particularly those of Slavic backgrounds; using the church Slavonic language) is quite similar; however there are large dogmatic and theological differences. Kurt Marko kmarko@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (04/21/91)
In article <Apr.17.01.13.41.1991.7864@athos.rutgers.edu> francis@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Francis Ho) writes:
what is the difference between the Greek Catholic Church and the
Roman Catholic Church??
The Church called "Roman Catholic" is actually made up of a number of
different "rites", of which the Roman is only one. They all have the
same beliefs, and are under the jurisdiction of John Paul II. The
different rites express the common set of beliefs in diverse ways, using
customs that are deeply rooted in historical traditions that spring from
various cultures.
One of the things that is immediately noticeable is liturgical
differences. Greek rites use the Greek language for their liturgy.
Other examples are Old Slavonic, used by the Byzantine-Ruthenians, and
Aramaic, used by the Maronites. Also, for example, in the Roman rite
liturgy, kneeling and genuflection are signs of reverence, not used as
much for that in the East. Another example is one I ran across in a
Byzantine Ruthenian chapel. They had an icon on a table near the
entrance; most people kissed it before they went to their seat. The
Eastern rites also do not use statues much. They prefer icons.RXC106@psuvm.psu.edu (04/22/91)
As a Byzantine (Greek) Catholic, I'd like to comment on the following remarks made about my Church. In article <Apr.21.00.32.00.1991.18810@athos.rutgers.edu>, kmarko@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Kurt Marko) says: > >[Francis Ho asked: >>what is the difference between the Greek Catholic Church and the >>Roman Catholic Church?? >I responded that it was one of the eastern churches that are >in communion with Rome (and thus distinct from the more widely >known eastern Orthodox churches), but which generally follow >many of the same eastern traditions as the Orthodox churches. --clh] > >To clarify the above. The Orthodox Church (one Church, with several >Patriarchates) is certainly not `in full communion with Rome.' The >Roman church was at one time part of the one Holy Catholic and >Apostolic Church, but slipped into schism, beginning about the 9th >Century, and culminated in 1054. Unfortunately, the term `Catholic' >has now been appropriated by the Roman church, causing some confusion. > >In America, Greek, or Byzantine Catholic churches are, as you mention >above, Eastern Rite churches under the Roman church. They have their Heh. Most Roman Catholics who are even aware of the Byzantine Churches in union with Rome think we are "under" the Roman Church. Hogwash. Our Church is the canonical equal of the Roman Church. >own Bishops, but are in `full communion' with the Pope. These uniate >churches were started in Eastern Europe after the schism (13-15th Centuries) >as a way for the Papacy to gain control over the Slavic regions by >mimicking the `ritual' of Orthodoxy. Note that only the ritual is >copied; the Eastern Rite churches share the same dogmatic and theological >`innovations' as their Latin brethren. The Slavic unions were at Brest, Lithuania (1596) and Ungvar (now Uzhhorod, USSR), Hungary (1646). They were motivated on the Roman side by the Jesuits, who wanted to gain control over these "schismatics," and on the Ruthenian (Carpatho-Rusyn, Ukrainian) side by the Ruthenian clergy, who essentially had no rights as non-"Catholic" citizens of Catholic domains. The understand- ing was that their Church would be recognizing the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Period. Nothing about dogma, theology, ritual was implied. Over the years, many Roman practices were introduced into liturgics because of pressure from the Polish Jesuits. Many of these practices were adopted in Hungary as well. Catechesis promoted the particular Roman doctrines be- cause these materials were printed using Roman sources. Of course, the "Orthodox" dogma, in Russia anyway, was comparably Latinized under Metro- politan Petro Mohyla of Kiev. Fortunately, in the United States, our Church is throwing out the Roman doctrine and theology - several hierarchs have decreed that the ridiculous _filioque_ clause in the Creed has no place in our Church and have thrown it out. Infant communion is being restored. With our own American semin- aries, our priests are being educated in the best Byzantine theological tradition. Eventually the Byzantine Catholic Church should be truly the Orthodox Church in union with Rome. If we could just convince the Pope that he really has no right to tell the Eastern Patriarchs what to do... > >So, to address the original question...there are large `ritualistic' >differences between the Roman Catholic church and its Uniate counterparts >(the Byzantine, or Greek Catholic church [in America]; the Ukrainian >Catholic church [in the USSR]), but they both hold to the same dogma >(e.g. the filioque, Immaculate Conception, Papal Infalibility, etc.). Well at least you didn't mention purgatory, cause we don't "have" that either. >In contrast, to the casual observer, the ritual of the uniate churches >and the Orthodox church (particularly those of Slavic backgrounds; >using the church Slavonic language) is quite similar; however there >are large dogmatic and theological differences. I'd say we have larger dogmatic & theological differences with the Romans than we do the Eastern Orthodox. The amount of misunderstanding, suspicion, and _hatred_ that this idea of the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox being "two (incompatible) faiths" is positively revolting. Rome apologizes to the Orthodox for the existence of the "uniates," yet they have never apologized to our Church for its situation. The Orthodox condemn us as traitors to an Orthodoxy we never left (I am as Orthodox a believer as you'll find, let me tell you...), and our hierarchs willingly submit to the whims of the Roman Catholics who never wanted anything to do with us in the first place. Look at the situation we're in - we spent 350 years trying to prove that we were "Catholic," and the Romans didn't get the point. They still don't think we really are. So we turn back to the East and get slapped around some more by our _real_ brothers and sisters. IMHO. The point is that I can't wait to be reunited with the Orthodox Church. But only when they're ready to have us. Until then, I will remain where I am - our people have been through too much in the last 350 years to be abandoned _again_. Then I'd really be the traitor that I and 8 million or so other Byzantine Catholics are made out to be. > >Kurt Marko >kmarko@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com []---------------------------------------------------------------------------[] [] /// Rich Custer / rxc106@psuvm.psu.edu / Penn State University [] [] /// | DISCLAIMER: "I didn't do it. | [] []\\\/// Make up your own | Nobody saw me do it. | Ja Rusyn byl, [] [] \XX/ mind... Amiga! | You can't prove anything!" | jesm' y budu! []