Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches

Question: 

I enjoyed viewing your website and have a question for you. What is the primary difference between the Ukraine Orthodox Church and the Ukraine Byzantine Rite. I find so much similarity that I don't understand why they do not unite. I do realize that the Byzantine Church is under the rule of rome and therefore the Holy Father. I know that the Orthodox Church is under the rule of the Patriarch.

I also know that the Holy Father in Rome has extended an olive branch to all the Orthodox Church to unite. Do you ever forsee us as one?

God bless!

Dear Friend,

Thank you for visiting our website and for posting your interesting question!

There truly is much that the Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic Churches have in common, especially their Byzantine-Kyivan spirituality and Rite.

The differences between them are to be found in the enduring differences between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches worldwide.

There are two primary differences (with a number of smaller, but important ones): The Procession and Role of the Holy Spirit and the Papacy.

Although the Universal, Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church was, before A.D.1054, united in a common Creed that confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeded "From the Father," certain circles in the West began to set forth the idea that the Spirit proceeded from both the "Father and the Son" (Filioque).

This was the beginning and the foundation for the East-West estrangement that took some time to take final hold and was probably solidified with the sacking of Constantinople by the western crusaders in the thirteenth century.

Why is that one word so important?  It is important because it affects a doctrine that is crucial to the proper understanding of the Apostolic doctrine of the Trinity or "Triadology" (the theology of the Trinity).

That doctrine is that there is only One Principle and Source in the Trinity, namely, the Father who is Unbegotten, who begets the Son and from Whom the Spirit proceeds.

Certain western theologians thought (and still think) that unless it is said that the Spirit proceeds "from the Son," it is impossible to distinguish the Son from the Spirit.

That is a rationalistic way of reasoning.  Just because we don't know the difference between "Begetting" and "Proceeding" (or "Spirating"), doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

The Orthodox Church condemned and still condemns any notion that there are two Principles in the Trinity.

Oddly enough, so does the Roman Catholic Church which teaches that the Spirit proceeds "actively" from the Father, the Monarch and Source of the Trinity, but only proceeds "passively" from the Son.  And you thought this was going to be a cinch . . .

The Orthodox East has always believed that such a view of the Trinity as is obtained in the West would reduce the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.

This happened with a great emphasis in the Roman Church on externals in Church life, on a lessening of the liturgical role of the Spirit (removal of the Invocation of the Spirit in the Mass or "Epiclesis," and a weakening of His overt role in the other Sacraments), and a de-emphasis of Theosis, or transformation in Christ by the Spirit. 

The Orthodox East sees in the "Filioque" the basis for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.  For if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, as He does from the Father, and if the Pope is the "Vicar of Christ," then the Pope too must be said to have the Spirit proceed from him as well (Infallibility).

There are other differences, to be sure, all of which stem from this one, main Triadological issue.

Roman Catholic theologians studying this issue have agreed that Rome must return to the Creed of the early Church and the Fathers.  The Filioque should be removed from it.  Indeed, the Catholic Church of Greece has already removed it and this is seen as a kind of "experiment" by Rome.

With the removal of the Filioque and the settlement of other theological issues, there is still the matter of ecclesiology or the theology of the Church.

The East has always acknowledged the Pope to be "First among Equals" that is, before the Schism.

Local and Patriarchal Church government is very important to the East.  It contrasts sharply with the central administrative control exercised by the Vatican.

In short, the Orthodox Church has the Apostolic Age on its side. Rome has its subsequent developments in faith and the Church.

I think that unity can only be achieved if both Churches take the Apostolic Tradition as the one standard for such unity.

Only then will the Church have that diversity in unity that is a reflection of the Holy Trinity, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who, as our Lord Himself said, "Proceeds from the Father."

May God bless you during this Holy time of the Great Fast!

Please see additional discussion on our Index to Articles Page.

Dr. Alexander Roman alex@unicorne.org