Why is the Byzantine Catholic Church also called the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church? Fr. Hardon's *Catholic Dictionary* defines "Ruthenian Rite " as: >The liturgy used by the Ruthenian Catholics in Poland, the United States, and elsewhere. Said in the Slavonic language, it differs but slightly from the Byzantine Rite in the Orthodox Church. I've even seen such churches called Ukrainian.

Is there a bilingual, Greek-English version of St. Romanus's *Akathist Hymn* ?

The Latin Vulgate is considered to be the official version of the bible of the Roman Catholic church. I'm wondering if this means it is only the official version of the Roman Catholic Church, or does it include the Eastern Catholic Churches as well. If it is only the official version of the Latin church, do the individual Eastern Catholic Churches have their own official versions as well? (Eg. Perhaps the official Melkite version is the Septuagint, while the official Chaldean version is the Peshitta etc)

I am a Latin Rite Catholic, but since September, I have been primarily attending Melkite and Ruthenian Divine Liturgies. Recently, I started attending the Latin Mass again, and while the transition has been mostly seamless, I’ve encountered one challenge—I find it nearly impossible to revert to making the Sign of the Cross from left to right. In the Divine Liturgy, one makes the Sign of the Cross over a hundred times, and after crossing myself from right to left over a thousand times, it has become deeply ingrained in my muscle memory. What is the historical or theological reason behind the difference in the direction of the Sign of the Cross between Eastern and Western traditions? Additionally, as a Latin Catholic, is it acceptable for me to continue crossing myself from right to left, or should I consciously work to revert to the Western practice?

Can a member of the Ruthenian Catholic Church be automatically excommunicated for apostasy? As far as I know they can't be, as the *Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches* states: >"One who denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls it into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract it after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication" (1436) Does this imply that the Church has to be officially involved in order for the person to be excommunicated?

In the Latin Church, the [Liturgical Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_Movement) and the Second Vatican Council resulted in broad liturgical changes. To what extent has liturgy changed in the Eastern churches during the past 50 to 100 years? I am interested in any or all of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Eastern Catholic.

Is a wedding between a Greek Orthodox to a Maronite Rite Catholic permitted and can the ceremony be performed in the Greek Orthodox Church?

Catholic convert here. It is of my understanding that the differences between the Calvinist and Catholic predestination theology is mostly a game of semantics, and I was curious to see other opinions on this, and hope for correction if I am gravely incorrect. I read this a while ago - http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm Putting aside Catholic distinctions of mortal/venial sin (which the Eastern Catholics reject the distinction between mortal and venial sin while not contradicting "latin" theology, and is thus also a valid position in Catholicism) and losing your state of grace and getting back into a state of grace, is TULIP not more or less true? If the grace of final perseverance for the elect is a grace we cannot merit and is given freely by God to the elect and God predestines us based on the foreknowledge of our acceptance of Christ and there is nothing we can do to merit this gift of faith either, is this not just double predestination? This is what I mean by it being a game of semantics. Different vocab and formula to arrive at the same conclusion. Thoughts appreciated.

I am baptised **Maronite Catholic**, and my partner is **Chaldean Catholic**. My partner has never been a part of his Chaldean Church, never attended his church and has no involvement in his community. This has been the case since his father died when he was 3 years old in Iraq. Since that time, he fled Iraq with his mother and siblings as refugees and came to Melbourne, Australia. Despite there being Chaldean Churches in Melbourne, his mother would him and his siblings to local (Roman Catholic) churches to pray. Unfortunately, my partner's mother also passed away when he was 15 years old. From that time, he did not attend church at all and started losing his faith. On the other hand, I am baptised Maronite Catholic and have grown up attended my local Maronite church. Our Maronite priest is very close with my family and we have a strong relationship and bond with our church. Since my partner and I started dating, he has become heavily involved in the Maronite church and has redeveloped his faith. He considers our Maronite priest to be a strong figure in his life and often reaches out to him for guidance and support. We are getting married and we both wish to be married in the Maronite church by our Maronite priest. Given my partner was baptised as Chaldean, he is required to obtain 'Permission' from the Chaldean church to marry 'outside' of the Chaldean parish. The Chaldean church is refusing to provide this permission. According to Msgr. Paul MINGANA from St. Thomas Chaldean Cathedral NSW, from July 2019 Archbishop Amel Nona promulgated a law which stated that *no permission will be given to any Chaldean male from that date onwards, to get married in different rite, other than Chaldean Rite*. How is this possible? Is there a way around this? My partner is willing to be baptised as a Maronite if he needs to, but we have been advised that it is not possible to be baptised as a Catholic if you are already a Catholic. He has no involvement or connection with the Chaldean church. Can he change from the Chaldean rite to Maronite? Can he leave the Chaldean church? What are his options? Our wedding is only nine weeks away and this is becoming very urgent and causing us both a great deal of anxiety and stress. Thank you and God bless.

There are some books considered to be canonical by (some) Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Churches, but not by the Latin Church. E.g. 3+4 Maccabees. The Eastern Catholic Churches kept their own spirtitual heritage despite the union with Rome. If the canon of the Vulgate is valid for the whole Church as suggested here (after Trent), are there other "traditional" books used in the (liturgies of) Eastern Catholic Churches? What status do they have?

(I'm asking for roman catholicism, but you can answer eastern or other full communion's if you want.) Example: You can see some of my questions on marriage law in the Philippines (for example, Q1 and Q2 ; and also Q3 , that's not about the Philippines specifically). **Ostensibly**: 1. The Philippines differs from other Catholic countries in that Filipinos or well anyone gets married in the Philippines and wishes to be annulled in the Philippines is required to get an secular annulment (or foreign secular divorce. not sure.) before applying for a church annulment. In other countries, this requirement relaxed to a secular annulment OR a (local) secular divorce (again: or foreign secular divorce. not sure.). Therefore, poor Filipino Catholics who cannot go abroad to get a secular divorce and then a secular annulment. This unfortunate situation for Filipino Catholics is ironically because the Philippines doesn't have divorce because of Catholic reasons. 2. But this doesn't matter IF (but not only if I guess) Philippine secular marriage/canon laws accommodate all of Catholic marriage/canon laws. It seems that the former accommodates at least **almost** all of the latter. - 2.1. But still! Even if there's a **single** unaccommodated case, then there's the question of the poor Filipino Catholics who are invalid church married but valid secular married. I think of Genesis 18:27-33 or 'It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. ' (Oh wait, this statement is called 'Blackstone's ratio', and apparently it's a literal, well, ratio. I didn't think the statement was literal. I thought it really meant that I would rather have infinity guilty people go free than one innocent person in prison.) I'll repeat that the above has an '**ostensibly**' attached. --- **Question 1**: In general, how do Catholic marriage laws differ by region? - Eg there's a sufficient condition that makes a Japanese Roman Catholic marriage void/able that doesn't apply to French Roman Catholics or to German Eastern Catholics or whatever. - Eg there's a loophole that allows a Roman Catholic marriage conducted in Argentina to be void/able if the couple seeks an annulment in Scotland, whereas the marriage would've been otherwise 'valid' (as in not necessarily invalid) from the viewpoint of Argentinian diocese or whatever. - Eg the consummation rules are somehow different. (Maybe certain positions don't count in Ireland. IDK.) - If there are a lot, then well I find this insane since we're talking about a single denomination here, but ok, please say a few differences. (eh the lent and holy days of obligation already differ. I don't expect zero differences. I just expect there to be not so many differences.) - I attended a Catholic university in the Philippines, and we were required to take a course that included some canon law stuff like necessary or sufficient conditions for a marriage to be sacramental/consummated/void/able/invalid/whatever. I don't recall there was any mention of the regions to which these were applicable like 'applies to the Philippines but not necessarily to other countries'. I just assumed they were applicable everywhere. - **Re canon vs marriage**: Okay so the term I seem to be looking for is '**matrimonial law**' a subset of 'canon law'. Idk. I just remember from that class that catholic laws related to marriage and stuff are under 'canon law'. **Question 2**: How are Catholic marriage laws regionally affected by local laws? - Eg Because of certain laws in South Korea, Catholic marriages have or don't have a certain requirement expected of Catholic marriages elsewhere. - Perhaps age.

How come there is no evidence issued out by the Vatican that proves their list of Popes that have carried on from Apostle Peter? I can't find this anywhere and since I can't meet Pope Francis unless I'm Katy Perry or Trump, how would I ever be able to find out about this? I can't really enter the Vatican and ask... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes I can't just trust the Vatican by their 'words'. I don't KNOW if they really did come from the line of Peter or not. I can only go by their word. This is not good enough for me. What if they made these people up? So far we can prove St Linus and St Clement existed since they were mentioned by Apostle Paul in the NT but whether they went onto being Arcbishops; we don't know for sure. How do we know whether the Catholic church is the successor of Peter or the Orthodox church? Since they both claim they are from the line of Peter...

Just curious. I wonder whether there are any Eastern Catholics to whom God gave the grace of receiving the wounds of Christ (stigmata) or did only Latin Rite Catholics ever receive them? I know of Croatian priest Zlatko Sudac, but I think he's a Latin Rite Catholic too.

The Chalcedonean Definition is the official Christology of the Catholic Church. It states that Christ is a single person with two natures: human and divine. These two natures are neither divided nor mixed. The Oriental Orthodox Christological position is Miaphysitism. This states that Christ has a single nature, but that nature is both fully human and fully divine, with the human and divine elements being neither mixed with nor divided from each other. Historically the Catholics have misunderstood miaphysitism as a form of monophysitism (Christ has a single nature which is either human or divine but not both) and the Oriental Orthodox have misunderstood Chalcedonean definition as being a form of Nestorianism (Christ was two persons). In my analysis, both sides are going to great pains to ensure that Christ is fully human and fully divine. They both go about it in different ways, but both succeed in the goal, and so both are acceptable formulations Recently the two sides have cooled off and the accusations of heresy against each other are not so strong. There have been [moves by some](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysitism#Towards_a_resolution_of_the_dispute?) to say that the dispute is just one of terminology, not substance. This includes joint statements signed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, but despite this, the Catholic and Oriental orthodox Churches have not officially declared themselves in communion with each other, so I am not sure if Miaphysitism is considered an acceptable Christological position by the Catholic church. Personally I find Miaphysitism to be more coherent and intuitive than the Chalcedonean 2 natures definition. As a Catholic, am I permitted to believe Miaphysitism so long as I don't simultaneously deny Chalcedon? And if it is permitted, then why aren't the Oriental Orthodox churches in full communion with the Catholic Churches as the Eastern Orthodox churches are? Related question: is this what the Eastern Catholic churches that have an Oriental Orthodox background do? Ie. Accept that the Chalcedonean definition is Orthodox, but go ahead and teach Miaphysitism anyway? (I'm thinking of the Ethiopian, Eritrean and Coptic Catholic churches for example) edit: I note that the wikipedia article for Miaphysitism says the following: > **Historically, Chalcedonian Christians have considered Miaphysitism in > general to be amenable to an orthodox interpretation,** but they have > nevertheless perceived the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox to be > a form of Monophysitism (single nature doctrine). This seems to indicate that Chalcedonians are able to accept Miaphysitism, given an appropriate interpretation.

The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church use slightly different biblical canons: [Books of the Bible (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible?wprov=sfti1) . Notably, the Orthodox Church uses 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees while the Roman Catholic Church does not (at least not in the Latin Rite). However, I can’t find any information about what biblical canon the Eastern Catholic Churches use. These are the churches like the Marionite Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, etc... that are in full communion with the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, but are often considered part of Eastern Christianity. Do these Eastern Catholic churches use the Roman Catholic canon, the Eastern Orthodox Canon, or some mix of the two? Does it differ from Church to Church? This is especially interesting to me because it seems like some Eastern Catholic communities were once in schism with the Roman Catholic Church but returned to full communion sometime later: [Eastern Catholic Churches (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches?wprov=sfti1) . Any historical perspective or info from Eastern Catholics themselves would be much appreciated!

When hearing about the civil war in Syria often religious (and ethnic) minorities are mentioned. There are for example different kinds of muslims, Yazidis, different kinds of Eastern Orthodox Christians, different kinds of Eastern Catholic Christians. My question is: How are these minorities spread over the country? I am not interested in statements like "Christians live in the North", but "There are whole provinces with nearly only Orthodox Christians with some scattered Eastern Catholic villages." or "The minorities live unseperated. In each village you will find one of each minority." My focus is on Christians and esp. on how Eastern Rite Catholics are distributed among the Orthodox. Mentioning other minorities is good too. I am interested in answers for before todays mobility (maybe 100 years ago) and for now (or before the war).

Is it possible for an Eastern Rite Catholic to change over to the Roman Rite and become ordained as Latin Rite priest? Is it possible for a layperson of an Eastern Catholic Rite (say the Melkite Rite) to change rites and become a seminarian studying to be a priest in the Roman Rite, I would like to know the process that is involved in changing rites so one can enter the seminary as a Latin Rite seminarian. Perhaps one would have to be bi-ritual? Any resources into this matter would be greatly appreciated. According to the comment from agapewolf on [Roman Catholic children and the Melkite Rite](https://forums.catholic.com/t/roman-catholic-children-and-the-melkite-rite/331461/9) , there is a cursory mention of "paperwork" in reference to the chaldean rite. However, according to [Babies can receive the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church, why do Catholic children have to wait?](http://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why_cant_babies_receive_eucharist.php) : the differences between Eastern Rite Churches in commiunion with Rome are merely pastoral and neither doctirnal nor dogmatic. So I feel there is not much friction in this respect. But according to this EWTN article: [Orthodox priest to Catholic priest, vice versa](http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=305264&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=) , it seems to be up to the bishop (based on the 4th answer). Nothing I have found seems to give a clear answer on this. Any proper explanation is well appreciated. And feel free to point me toward more credible resources, as I am no expert on this matter. Any references as to what protocols are in place by Rome would be greatly appreciated.

I was recently reading about [Isaac the Syrian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_of_Nineveh) . I learned that he is considered a Saint in the Eastern Catholic Church (EC), but, it seems, not in the Latin Catholic Church (LC). He is not listed [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_saints) , and he does not have a YES in [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_saints) either. Actually, from the latter, you can see that a lot of saints in the EC are not saints in the LC, and _vice versa_. So, if this is really the case, why is it? I could imagine this disparity **does not mean disagreement** about the merits of sainthood, but rather a type of specific tradition or relevance to the respective church. In effect, many LC-only saints were "members" of the now called LC (for example, [Rose of Lima](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_of_Lima) , from Peru), whereas many EC-only saints were "members" of the now called Orthodox Church (for example, [Clement of Ohrid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Ohrid) , from now Bulgaria).

This question occurred to me after reading this question about the observance of Lent among Eastern Rite converts . It is my understanding that since 1582, the Roman Catholic Church has followed the Gregorian calendar . The calendar having been a product of the post-Schism Roman Church, Eastern Orthodox were loathe to accept it - some for 5 centuries. Some majority Eastern Orthodox countries (e.g. Greece) were still subscribing to the Julian Calendar that had been in place during New Testament times as late as 1923. While all Eastern Orthodox countries (as far as I know) today observe the Gregorian calendar for civil purposes, some Orthodox jurisdictions (e.g. Russia) still observe the Julian calendar for religious purposes. Within the Eastern Orthodox Church we have the somewhat bizarre situation of virtually all (if not all) jurisdictions observing the Julian calendar with respect to the *Triodion* and the *Pentecostarion* - the periods leading up to and including Easter ("Pascha") and Pentecost, respectively - but some holding to the Gregorian calendar otherwise. Given the affinity between Byzantine Rite Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church, I was wondering if there are any Byzantine Rite Catholics or other Rites that at any time during the year observer the old Julian calendar for some purpose; perhaps along the line of New Calendar Orthodox jurisdictions more or less holding to the Old Calendar during the Paschal season.

Issue = Lent is treated slightly differently across the Catholic Rites. In the Melkite Rite, the Great Lent begins [on the Vespers of Clean Monday](http://www.mliles.com/melkite/greatlentcleanmondayvespers.shtml) , which is the Monday after Ash Wednesday ([Feb 19th this year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Monday)) , and ends on [the Friday after the 5th Sunday of Lent](http://www.mliles.com/melkite/greatlentsundaysfifth.shtml) . This is precisely 40 days, counts Sundays and has stricter a [stricter abstinence obligation](https://www.stjohnmelkite.com/fasting/) than the Latin Rite form of Lent. Namely, that abstinence be practiced on all days of Lent except for Palm Sunday and the Feast of the Annunciation. In the Roman Catholic Rite, [lent](http://antiochian.org/node/25432) begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Holy Thursday. This includes Sundays [only as far as our conscience dictates](http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-year/lent/questions-and-answers-about-lent.cfm) . Question = If someone is baptized, given first communion, and confirmed as a Melkite Catholic, but has otherwise grown up in the Western Rite, does Melkite doctrine state that there can be a choice in which Lent a believer chooses to follow?