What is the difference between the Byzantine church and the greek orthodox churc

[JR]

Hi, can anyone tell me What is the difference between the Byzantine church and the greek orthodox church?

apart from communion with Rome.

Thanks

 

[Michał]

Hi, can anyone tell me What is the difference between the Byzantine church and the greek orthodox church?

What do you mean by the Byzantine Church? The contemporary Byzantine (or Greek) Catholic Church(es), that is, the Catholic Church(es) of the Byzantine (or Greek) rite, or the Church of the Byzantine Empire (4th-15th century AD)?

 

[JR]

Hi, can anyone tell me What is the difference between the Byzantine church and the greek orthodox church?

What do you mean by the Byzantine Church? The contemporary Byzantine (or Greek) Catholic Church(es), that is, the Catholic Church(es) of the Byzantine (or Greek) rite, or the Church of the Byzantine Empire (4th-15th century AD)?

wow, I did not know there was more than one !

I presume it is the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite That is part of the RCC.

I can go to there services and partake as a Roman Catholic.

I was told by someone they are not fully Catholic and not fully Orthodox. so very confusing.

I hope I have not confused you.

 

[Michał]

wow, I did not know there was more than one !

For the full list, see this message: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13463.msg186594.html#msg186594

I was told by someone they are not fully Catholic and not fully Orthodox.

I know some people may say otherwise, but they are fully Catholic, just like Western Rite Orthodox are fully Orthodox.

 

[JR]

wow, I did not know there was more than one !

For the full list, see this message: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13463.msg186594.html#msg186594

I was told by someone they are not fully Catholic and not fully Orthodox.

I know some people may say otherwise, but they are fully Catholic, just like Western Rite Orthodox are fully Orthodox.

Thank you for that, that was very interesting.

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

 

[Michał]

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

 

[JR]

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.

 

[Michał]

. . . So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches . . .

It all depends on what one believes. If one believes in the Catholic -- rahter then Orthodox -- doctrine and loves the Byzantine rite, there is a point going to a Byzantine Catholic church.

 

[Volnutt]

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.

Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.

 

[JR]

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.

Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...

 

[Volnutt]

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.

Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...

Ii know what you mean, and you'll certainly find a fair share of both Catholics and Orthodox who think Byzcaths should just be consistent and become Orthodox.

Then I think about the fact that we all read the same Bible yet have different beliefs...

 

[Schultz]

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.

Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...

Interpretation.  The human mind can easily make a square peg fit into a round hole when it wants to.

 

[Michał]

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...

Well, many liturgical rites are shared by various Church communions, which adhere to different beliefs -- that's just how things work in the Christendom.

 

[JR]

When you put the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and compare it to The Latin Rite mass, it is worlds apart, completely different, But the Byzantine and Orthodox are the same.

So in my eyes the Byzantine is really Orthodox that Rome accepts and they accept the pope as head.

Confusing???

 

[Schultz]

When you put the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and compare it to The Latin Rite mass, it is worlds apart, completely different, But the Byzantine and Orthodox are the same.

So in my eyes the Byzantine is really Orthodox that Rome accepts and they accept the pope as head.

Confusing???

And yet the Roman Mass of ca. AD 700 and the Constantinopolitan Liturgy of the same were also worlds apart and they shared a common faith.

 

[AWR]

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.

Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...

Sometimes it helps to go back to the history “uniate” (Orthodox parishes joining the Roman Church).   For the most part Orthodox parishes found themselves in Western Countries when political boundaries changed.

History lesson:

The sixteenth century saw the development of the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom on the Western boundary of Russia. By 1569 Poland and Lithuania had become one under Sigismund. The kingdom had taken segments of the Russian lands as far east as Kiev - territory populated almost exclusively by Orthodox Christians. Jesuits had entered this territory earlier, bringing Latin learning and practices. The result was the Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596 through which the Orthodox bishops of the area effected a union with the Roman Church on the foundations agreed to in Florence a century earlier. The rites and customs of the Church for the masses of Orthodox faithful taken into the "unia" remained the same. The ecclesiastical hierarchy, clerical, and academic leadership of the Church was totally subjected to the Latin discipline and doctrine of the Roman papacy. This union of 1596 remained in effect in the territories which have continued to be ruled by non-Orthodox governments such as Poland, Austro-Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. From its inception, the uniate movement was always confronted with substantial opposition. Opposers were mainly Orthodox laymen who were organized into brotherhoods and blessed by Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople to defend the Orthodox faith, as early as 1588. In the beginning the anti-uniate movement was helped by the use of the printing press of Ivan Fedorov. This man was expelled from Muscovy with his "diabolical invention" by Ivan III.

( http://oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=149 )

 

[Michał]

When you put the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and compare it to The Latin Rite mass, it is worlds apart, completely different . . .

Older forms of the Roman rite aren't that different from the Byzantine rite (as far as their "spirit" is concerned). The real difference comes with the Novus Ordo, especially when it is served versus populum and in a happy-clappy style (or simply in a sloppy way).

 

[JR]

When you put the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and compare it to The Latin Rite mass, it is worlds apart, completely different . . .

Older forms of the Roman rite aren't that different from the Byzantine rite (as far as their "spirit" is concerned). The real difference comes with the Novus Ordo, especially when it is served versus populum and in a happy-clappy style (or simply in a sloppy way).

I really do not like this type of Mass, it is so non-spiritual these days, and I don't think the new English mass will make any difference.

 

[Michał]

I really do not like this type of Mass, it is so non-spiritual these days, and I don't think the new English mass will make any difference.

Surely, a change in wording won't change a thing. What is needed is a change in priests' mentality and approach.

 

[JR]

I really do not like this type of Mass, it is so non-spiritual these days, and I don't think the new English mass will make any difference.

Surely, a change in wording won't change a thing. What is needed is a change in priests' mentality and approach.

I agree, and also the liberals..

 

[Orthodoc]

JR:

Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.

Here's a brief rundown -

Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.  The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!

My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.

Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.

When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!

Orthodoc

 

[JR]

JR:

Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.

Here's a brief rundown -

Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!

My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.

Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.

When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!

Orthodoc

That was interesting, so The RCC had taken advantage and tricked people into communion with Rome, basically a political game.... taking advantage of peoples naivety as they could not read and write.

it does make me wonder if the RCC is actually Christian when I read about all the things it has done...

 

[JoeS2]

In this case, thats about the extent of it.  We call it stealing sheep.

 

[AWR]

It is a sad part of church history, but remember that the governments (kingdoms) of the time wanted their subjects to be under the same bishops.  That  way they could deal with the people in a more organized way, and in the west, the Church of Rome was the more organized church.  I’ve read that folks were told that the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church. 

 

[JR]

It is a sad part of church history, but remember that the governments (kingdoms) of the time wanted their subjects to be under the same bishops.  That  way they could deal with the people in a more organized way, and in the west, the Church of Rome was the more organized church.  I’ve read that folks were told that the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church. 

Just outright lies, no excuse for that !

 

[AWR]

It is a sad part of church history, but remember that the governments (kingdoms) of the time wanted their subjects to be under the same bishops.  That  way they could deal with the people in a more organized way, and in the west, the Church of Rome was the more organized church.  I’ve read that folks were told that the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church. 

Just outright lies, no excuse for that !

But don't hold that against the parishioners of the Byzantine Rite church today.  It is, in my opinion, the bishops of that Rite who need to find a way to remedy this centuries old problem.

 

[Orthodoc]

It is a sad part of church history, but remember that the governments (kingdoms) of the time wanted their subjects to be under the same bishops.  That  way they could deal with the people in a more organized way, and in the west, the Church of Rome was the more organized church.  I’ve read that folks were told that the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church.  

Just outright lies, no excuse for that !

But don't hold that against the parishioners of the Byzantine Rite church today.  It is, in my opinion, the bishops of that Rite who need to find a way to remedy this centuries old problem.

I agree.  One of the first things these bishops have to do is stop teaching that their church is the bridge that will reunite both churches.  Nothing can be further from the truth!  Even the RCC doesn't believe or proclaim that anymore.  If anything, their church is the biggest hinderence towards eventual reunion.  The RCC realizes that and that's why this church is never invited to any joint Roman Catholic/Orthodox Catholic discussions.  The RCC realizes they( GCC)  suffer from an identity crisis and  are a blemish of the history of their RCC.  When Rome started to claim that our churches are in fact sister churches the Orthodox answered by stating if that is the case and we are in fact share equal validity in beliefs and practices the this Church should be given a chance to decide which theology they wanted follow and become full members of that church in idenity & practice.

Orthodoc

 

[J Michael]

JR:

Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.

Here's a brief rundown -

Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!

My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.

Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.

When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!

Orthodoc

That was interesting, so The RCC had taken advantage and tricked people into communion with Rome, basically a political game.... taking advantage of peoples naivety as they could not read and write.

it does make me wonder if the RCC is actually Christian when I read about all the things it has done...

JR--The RCC *is* a Christian Church.  The Orthodox Church *is* a Christian Church.  In both of them there have been and still are people who act in an un-Christian manner, sometimes even in the name of their respective church.  This has been the case since long before the schism.

 

[ialmisry]

JR:

Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.

Here's a brief rundown -

Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!

My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.

Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.

When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!

Orthodoc

That was interesting, so The RCC had taken advantage and tricked people into communion with Rome, basically a political game.... taking advantage of peoples naivety as they could not read and write.

it does make me wonder if the RCC is actually Christian when I read about all the things it has done...

JR--The RCC *is* a Christian Church.  The Orthodox Church *is* a the Christian Church.  In both of them there have been and still are people who act in an un-Christian manner, sometimes even in the name of their respective church.  This has been the case since long before the schism.

fixed that for you.

 

[ialmisry]

It is a sad part of church history, but remember that the governments (kingdoms) of the time wanted their subjects to be under the same bishops.  That  way they could deal with the people in a more organized way, and in the west, the Church of Rome was the more organized church.  I’ve read that folks were told that the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church.  

Just outright lies, no excuse for that !

But don't hold that against the parishioners of the Byzantine Rite church today.  It is, in my opinion, the bishops of that Rite who need to find a way to remedy this centuries old problem.

I agree.  One of the first things these bishops have to do is stop teaching that their church is the bridge that will reunite both churches.  Nothing can be further from the truth!  Even the RCC doesn't believe or proclaim that anymore.  If anything, their church is the biggest hinderence towards eventual reunion.  The RCC realizes that and that's why this church is never invited to any joint Roman Catholic/Orthodox Catholic discussions.  The RCC realizes they( GCC)  suffer from an identity crisis and  are a blemish of the history of their RCC.  When Rome started to claim that our churches are in fact sister churches the Orthodox answered by stating if that is the case and we are in fact share equal validity in beliefs and practices the this Church should be given a chance to decide which theology they wanted follow and become full members of that church in idenity & practice.

Orthodoc

As someone put it, the Byzantine church is not the door, but the door mat, to the Vatican.

 

[J Michael]

JR:

Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.

Here's a brief rundown -

Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!

My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.

Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.

When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!

Orthodoc

That was interesting, so The RCC had taken advantage and tricked people into communion with Rome, basically a political game.... taking advantage of peoples naivety as they could not read and write.

it does make me wonder if the RCC is actually Christian when I read about all the things it has done...

JR--The RCC *is* a Christian Church.  The Orthodox Church *is* a Christian Church.  In both of them there have been and still are people who act in an un-Christian manner, sometimes even in the name of their respective church.  This has been the case since long before the schism.

fixed that for you.

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)

 

[ialmisry]

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.

Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...

Interpretation.  The human mind can easily make a square peg fit into a round hole when it wants to.

indeed!  The round and square nature can be seen by the Latinizations which crept into the Byzantine church, and the changes made in the WRO DL of St. Gregory to make it conform to Orthodoxy (in the later, the peg is rounded before being inserted into the hole).

 

[ialmisry]

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)

My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)

Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."

 

[ialmisry]

Hi, can anyone tell me What is the difference between the Byzantine church and the greek orthodox church?

apart from communion with Rome.

Thanks

Depends on who you are talking to or about.  Some Ruthenians/Ukrainians are more Latin that the Vatican.  Some Melkites are more Orthodox than the Orthodox.

 

[J Michael]

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)

My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)

Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."

Oh boy.  Here we go.  Again.  It really is not worth engaging you. 

 

[ialmisry]

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)

My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)

Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."

Oh boy.  Here we go.  Again.  It really is not worth engaging you. 

Then don't.

 

[orthonorm]

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)

My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)

Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."

Oh boy.  Here we go.  Again.  It really is not worth engaging you. 

Then don't.

Let's see if he has enough resolve.

 

[Papist]

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)

My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)

Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."

Don't confuse pride with true zeal for the truth.

 

[Papist]

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)

My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)

Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."

Oh boy.  Here we go.  Again.  It really is not worth engaging you. 

Then don't.

This, my friends, is what you would all baiting.

 

[Yurysprudentsiya]

JR:

Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.

Here's a brief rundown -

Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!

My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.

Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.

When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!

Orthodoc

This is put very well.  I would add only that it was not simply the rulers (the King of Poland, etc.) and Rome who desired Catholicism within his realm, but many of the (we would say misguided) Orthodox Bishops in Eastern Europe also initially desired union for purposes of religious protection and advancement.  This was for several reasons:  the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom the Metrpolitan of Kyiv and Halych had been subject, had been greatly weakened after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453.  It was not easy to communicate about religious matters, as the Patriarch was greatly restricted in what he could do, and was surrounded by a hostile regime.  They were not interested in switching allegiance to the Patriarch of Moscow, inasmuch as they were under the political protection of the Polish sovereign, and it was not desirable to be ecclesiastically subject to a patriarch in a rival state.  Thus, many Orthodox bishops, having come under the jurisdiction of the Polish (Catholic) State, were more amenable to seeking the ecclesiastical protection of the Bishop of Rome than they might otherwise have been.  Thus the Union of Brest in 1596.  Educated non-clerical people, especially the Orthodox groups in the cities, rejected (in some cases violently) the Union.  Some bishops soon after repudiated it, resulting in a messy century-long situation in which some cities had both a Greek Catholic and an Orthodox bishop.  Within a century, their successors accepted the Union.  You speak about the Byzantine Catholic Church.  It did not stem from the Union of Brest, but from a similar union adopted in 1646, called the Union of Uzhhorod, covering the lands subject to the Eparchy of Mukachevo.    If you Google, you can find (in English) the terms of the Union of Brest, which were primarily liturgical.

The people in the villages really saw little change in their churches until after the Synod of Zamosc in 1720 when the Greek Catholic liturgy started to become standardized.  Prior to that, the priests were using old Orthodox service books which had been "retro-fitted."  Many villages near the border with Russia would call in an Orthodox priest if their Greek Catholic priest had died.  This was problematic to the Catholic Church and for the government, which didn't want Russian influence in the parishes.  The Greek Catholic Church began a stringent campaign to educate its priests, and it became noted for its sermons.  This was so that it could impress upon the people that they were praying for the Pope, who for many years was not included in the prayers in some villages.  Latinizations began to accrue.

After the Union, the Greek Catholic Church extended throughout the Polish lands, from Kyiv into what was western Galicia, approaching Krakow, Poland.  As Russia acquired more and more territory from the weak and dying Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, however, it fought to bring the people back to Orthodoxy.  If one reads anything of the life of Catherine the Great, one comes to the conclusion that this was more a political calculation than anything else, just as the Union of Brest had been.  Some parishioners returned very willingly to Orthodoxy, and others were compelled to give up their Greek Catholicism.  Because of political efforts, the entire region under the Russian partition of Poland reconverted to Orthodoxy in three waves, in 1796, 1839, and 1875.

Church history is messy and politics created some dirty events on both sides, sadly.  Modern freedom of religion simply did not exist in the age of "cuius regio, eius religio."

Greek Catholics from both the Union of Brest lands (mostly north of the Carpathians) and the Union of Uzhhorod lands (south of the Carpathians) came to the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  They spoke varying dialects of an East Slavic tongue, calling themselves Rusnaks, Ruthenians, Carpatho-Russians, and/or Ukrainians, and worked in the mines and factories of the Northeast.  Some, influenced by St. Alexis Toth, returned to Orthodoxy soon after arrival, and they are the nucleus of what was called the Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (originally under Russia), which is now the OCA.  Others remained in the Greek Catholic Church which, by 1924, had split into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Byzantine (or Ruthenian) Catholic Church, based on the competing political sentiments of its members.  In this split, those who went with the Byzantine or Ruthenian Catholic Church almost all had their origin in the descendants of people from the Eparchy of Mukachevo, south of the Carpathian Mountains in what is now Slovakia and the Transcarpathian Oblast of Ukraine, while those who went with the UGCC came from north of the Carpathian Mountains in what is now Southeastern Poland and the three western oblasts of Ukraine (L'viv, Ivano-Frankivs'k, and Ternopil).  Some came out of these groups into Orthodoxy -- those from the UGCC starting in 1929, mainly because married priests were disallowed and parish control of church property was restricted, and organized the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA , and those from the Byzantine Catholic Church in the 1930s came into the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD) for some of the same reasons.  So you can see why all the liturgies of these churches have common variants, deriving from the Divine Liturgy as employed by (broadly) one particular ethnic group.

But today, the theology is standardized in both camps.  The UGCC and BCC are Catholic Churches under the Pope, and the UOC of the USA and ACROD are Orthodox Churches under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.  And, in the motherland, the Metropolitan of Kyiv has been under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow since 1686, when Russia acquired the territory of Kyiv and the metropolitanate was transferred from Constantinople's jurisdiction.