Ask me anything about Eastern Catholicism

[Shiranui117]

Just curious, why the Idolatry in both forms of Catholicism ?

We have no idolatry. We don't worship idols, and we have no idols. We have icons (Eastern Catholicism) and statues (Roman Catholicism), but these are never, ever worshipped, not even icons of Christ. The role of icons and statues in Catholicism is like the role of the American flag in US society--we salute it (and thereby what it represents) and treat it with great respect, but we don't worship it.

 

[Shiranui117]

1. What is the role of music in your tradition?

The role of music in Eastern Catholicism has traditionally been much greater than in Western Catholicism; the traditional Latin Mass had long periods of silence, and the people sitting in the pews typically did not sing along or actively participate in the service. This is in great contrast to the various Eastern traditions, where the entire congregation sings, and there is almost not a single moment of silence throughout the entire Liturgy.

In the Byzantine tradition, we sing everything acappella (no instruments). I believe this is partially to make the words we're singing easier to hear; I can't tell you how many Roman Masses I've been to where I couldn't tell what anyone was singing because the organ was so loud. In the Oriental Catholic parishes though, they have things like liturgical drums (Ethiopian and Eritrean), triangles and cymbals (Coptic). I think the Armenian Catholics also use organs. I'm not sure what the Syriac Catholics in Syria and India do, but I'm 90% sure they have various instruments.

This video is Ethiopian Orthodox, but the Ethiopian Catholics (and I think the Eritrean Catholics too) would also do the same thing during their Liturgy.

2. Is there a reason for using robes? Are they considered plain or fancy? Are they made of special materials?

You mean the vestments that the clergy wear? I know a lot of it derives from the everyday garb of the Byzantine Empire. Later on the bishops took on some of the clothing items that the nobility wore.

Deacons in the Byzantine Church wear this:

Spoiler: Big image

The long piece of cloth he's holding in his right hand is called an orarion. Back in the olden days before we had service books, that piece of cloth would have the things that the deacon prays for during the litanies stitched onto it. The deacon would hold the orarion and read the prayer petitions from the orarion (we have the same prayer petitions every Liturgy unless something big happens somewhere in the world, in which case the parish will pray the extra petitions). With the advent of service books, those petitions stopped being stitched onto the orarion, but deacons will still hold it like they used to because it became a tradition.

In the picture of Metropolitan William I posted up above, you can see a long piece of cloth wrapped around his shoulders. That is called an omophor, and is both a symbol of the bishop's authority, as well as the yoke of Christ which he bears.

Here's an expository link that explains some of the vestments: https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-church-building/vestments
And another one: http://www.roca.org/OA/32/32f.htm

Spoiler: Biiiiig picture with altar servers in foreground.

Altar servers like me just wear a plain black cassock (the same as that worn by clergy) and a vestment over top that basically hits our ankles and goes most of the way down the arms. As a side note, cassocks are SUPER comfy. They could use that as a selling point to bring up the number of vocations to the clergy.

I have no idea what the vestments are made out of nowadays (the fabric feels like it has some kind of polyester blend or something), but they are by no means cheap. It varies on whether the priest personally owns them (since he moves from parish to parish every 6 to 12 years in the Catholic Church), or whether the parish owns them.

 

[Shiranui117]

K. I've thought of one more (in all this time). What's the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Orthodoxy? What are the similarities between the EP and the Papacy in Catholicism? What are the differences?

The role of the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) in Orthodoxy is, on paper, rather similar to what Orthodoxy sees as the role of the Pope was in the first thousand years of Christianity: the Ecumenical Patriarch has the authority to settle disputes between different Orthodox Churches, he is viewed as the most senior of all Orthodox Patriarchs, and he has the ability to convoke Ecumenical Councils. On paper.

In reality, though, the Ecumenical Patriarch has basically zero authority outside of the churches that he is Patriarch over. The Orthodox Church was supposed to have a pan-Orthodox Council, which the Ecumenical Patriarch has been trying to get to happen for literally 50 years. But right before that Council was supposed to happen last month, four Churches (Bulgaria, Russia, Antioch and someone else) backed out, and the EP couldn't do a thing about it other than say "Come on guys, really?" The Orthodox Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem are in schism with each other, and there's not really much the EP can do to get them to settle the territory dispute that they're having. Also, with the Moscow Patriarchate alone having the majority of the world's Eastern Orthodox Christians, Moscow has basically been challenging the EP for the position of top dog in the Orthodox world, and that rivalry between them essentially dominates the politics within the Eastern Orthodox Church. The EP cannot declare anything infallibly; only an Ecumenical Council is viewed as infallible in the Orthodox Church. Getting a council to be recognized as Ecumenical is a very complicated and confusing process among the Orthodox, however.

The role of the Papacy in Catholicism is the same as the Ecumenical Patriarch's on paper, with the difference that the Pope is able to exercise all the authority that it says he has on the paper. He can settle differences between various Catholic Churches, his decisions are given deference even among Eastern and Oriental Catholic Patriarchs, he's successfully called 14 Ecumenical Councils since the schism with the Orthodox Church, and when he calls a Synod (not quite as big as an Ecumenical Council, but still passes decisions that the whole Church adheres to), everyone shows up and no one backs out. The Pope can declare matters of faith and morals infallibly as long as a certain, strict list of criteria are met. He can steer the direction that the Catholic Church takes (Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II have been demonstrating this in spades), and he can defend the unity of the Catholic Church, both in the unity of faith and in the unity of communion. The Catholic Church as a whole is much more efficiently organized and has established channels for settling disputes and hairy situations, which the Orthodox Church doesn't.

Whether that centralization in the Catholic Church is a good thing or not is something that Catholics and Orthodox disagree about, however; the Orthodox claim that their method of church organization best matches how the early Church looked, whereas Catholics argue that the Pope being the head honcho is how things always worked and that a well-organized Church makes everyone's lives less confusing and more pain-free.