Give me the quick rundown on Eastern Rite Catholicism

Give me the quick rundown on Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Other bishoprics / sees are supposed to be equally apostolic with that of St. Peter, recognizing them as equals of Rome implies recognizing their rites and such.

Sometimes they can be truly independent from Rome. During the First Vatican Council, the eastern leaders nearly separated.

Maronite and Nestorian societies are the only ones where Catholicism became the majority. Orthodoxy remains the majority in its countries.

That looks like the Syro-Malabar church, the most clear case of Catholic growth, with a unique story of how it replaced Nestorianism ias the majority of Christians in that area, and involving force from the Portuguese.

Orthodox, mystery and all, who answer to the Pope

Image worshipping heretics

Worst of both worlds, tbqh.
Western Rite Orthodoxy is Christianity in its most perfect state.

Protections user. Read a book.

>syro-malankaran liturgy celebrated in a byzantine church on the fucking tetrapod
Why do they do this? The Maronite mission at my byzantine church, the priest would celebrate on the tetrapod, versus populum. It made me so fucking mad.

Pardon me that's Syro-Malabar.

Anyways the point stands. Why do Syro-Malabar, Chaldean, and Maronite Catholics do versus populum and have altar girls and crap? REEEEEEEE

This. Pretty much all of them are Eastern Orthodox Churches who reconciled with Rome after the Great Schism. Liturgically speaking they're pretty much identical to the current Orthodox, but they have to accept Catholic doctrine regarding the Filioque and Assumption of Mary (among other things).

>but they have to accept Catholic doctrine regarding the Filioque and Assumption of Mary (among other things).
You mean the Catholic doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit agreed upon at the Council of Florence that says that the ultimate origin of the Spirit's procession lies solely within the Father and spirates through the Son?

And Eastern Catholics have always celebrated the Dormition of the Theotokos.

No, the opposite: the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from both Father and Son. The Orthodox believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. It's all semantics, though, really.

Dormition =/= Assumption. They're both extraordinary deaths, but the specifics differ. The Dormition states that Mary fell asleep in the Lord, whereas the Assumption goes a step further and states that she ascended body and soul into Heaven, like Jesus.

They're celebrated on the same day, and the Eastern Catholics still formally celebrate the Dormition (so I was mistaken earlier).

>the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from both Father and Son
You're a semi-Arian heretic. If the Father and the Son share an eternal attribute that attribute is necessarily an attribute of divinity. If the Holy Spirit does not also share it then he is subordinate, inferior, and less divine than the other two, making him not God.
>The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.
The distinction in the manner of the Spirit's procession from the Son is that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as a result of His Spiration through the Son having its origin in the Father who gives it to the Son through having begotten Him.

Pic related shows how this imbalance removed the Spirit from the trinity.
>Dormition ≠ Assumption
Kontakion of the Dormition:
>Neither the tomb, nor death could hold the Theotokos,
>Who is constant in prayer and our firm hope in her intercessions.
>For being the Mother of Life,
>She was translated to life by the One who dwelt in her virginal womb.
The tradition is that her body was not in the tomb the next day after she had been laid to rest.

We have always believed that her body was translated after her dormition.

>schismatic detected

The Filioque in no way supports a subordinationist view of the Trinity. Of course the Spirit is divine, but that doesn't change His relationship with the other two persons; the Spirit has eternally proceeded from both the Father and the Son, the same way the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

>The distinction in the manner of the Spirit's procession from the Son is that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as a result of His Spiration through the Son having its origin in the Father who gives it to the Son through having begotten Him.

Which is why I said it's largely a semantic issue. When you boil it down both you schismatics and us papists believe the same thing.

>The tradition is that her body was not in the tomb the next day after she had been laid to rest. We have always believed that her body was translated after her dormition.

That still differs from the Assumption, which states that she was never entombed and her body was never translated. Rather, the Mother of God ascended body and soul into heaven much like Christ; there was no falling asleep, or really anything resembling a mortal death.

And then there are our disagreements on Papal Supremacy and Purgatory

>Of course the Spirit is divine, but that doesn't change His relationship with the other two persons;
His relationship to the Father and the Son necessarily must be different otherwise the Son and Father share something the Spirit does not, which subordinates the Spirit. Therefore the procession from the Son must be in nature different from the procession from the Father. Through the Son is that explanation.
>which states that she was never entombed and her body was never translated
"At the conclusion of her earthly life." Pius XII believed she died. And translation and assumption mean the same thing.

>His relationship to the Father and the Son necessarily must be different otherwise the Son and Father share something the Spirit does not

By that rationale the Spirit is subordinate since the Son proceeds from the Father, and not both Father and Spirit. That would mean that the Father possesses something unique, no?

>Pius XII believed she died

He also defined ex cathedra the Assumption in Munificentissimus Deus. Though I'll grant that Pope John Paul II thinks she died a mortal death as well.

Going all the way back to my main point, though, is that our differences aren't that colossal. Whether it's Dormition or Assumption, we both venerate the Mother of God and recognize that she didn't die a mortal death, and was taken up bodily into Heaven.

>By that rationale the Spirit is subordinate since the Son proceeds from the Father, and not both Father and Spirit. That would mean that the Father possesses something unique, no?
What each person of the Trinity uniquely possesses is what makes them unique persons - what all three share is also what makes all three persons to be the one God.

The Son does NOT proceed from the Father. The Son is eternally begotten by the Father. As a result of having been begotten by the Father, the Spirit proceeds through the Son from the Father as the principle. The Son shares in the principality of the Father in the procession by virtue of having been begotten, and only because of that, but he does not form a separate principle. The Son sharing the principle of procession does not make it an attribute the Father and Son share apart from the Spirit because it's something the Son only shares in because he is begotten. The ultimate principle of procession is in the Father.
>recognize that she didn't die a mortal death,
That is not dogma and is historically false. The Theotokos died, was laid to rest, and then assumed into heaven.
>and was taken up bodily into Heaven.
That's literally the dogma, which we believe.

I meant “begotten”, got caught up in the nomenclature. My point still stands in that it would create a separation in sharing some sort of divine quality (which they don’t.)

To claim that the Son only partakes in the possession of the Spirit because of the Father smacks of Arianism. Besides, the Filioque was never really a primacy issue: we both agree in the end that the Spirit ultimately proceeds from both Father and Son. You just add in a few unnecessary steps to get there.

>That is not dogma and is historically false.

From our perspective it’s a matter of debate. The wording from the declaration ex cathedra is purposefully vague.

We’re still departing from my original point, which is that when it all boils down we fundamentally agree on these issues. You aren’t like the Prots, who are our really theological enemy.

He proceeds from the Father, through the Son, as from one principle, in one spiration.

If you aren't careful, the Latin view can be easily misinterpreted as from two principles. So the words are necessary.

The Filioque should be removed from your Creed.
>From our perspective it’s a matter of debate. The wording from the declaration ex cathedra is purposefully vague.
You said she "didn't die a mortal death." That's not dogma.

Wait, how do you know all of this is true? from what are you basing these beliefs?

>Orthodox, mystery and all, who answer to the Pope

>This. Pretty much all of them are Eastern Orthodox Churches who reconciled with Rome after the Great Schism.

The Church in the image is the largest Eastern Catholic Church and it does not come from Orthodoxy. It isn't even the only one that doesn't come from Orthodoxy.

Really? I always thought they follow orthodox doctrine 100%, only difference is that they accept the pope.

Also what i don't like about the Catholic church is what a complete mess their communion is. Catholics like to say the Orthodox church is a mess but the catholics with their eastern churches are a complete clusterfuck, at least the Orthodox have consistency, while the Catholics have like 10 different churches claiming the same juristiction. Like you have the roman catholic bishop, then you have the greek catholic bishop, then you have the miaphyste catholic bishop, then you have the miaphyste that split off from the older miaphyste then united with rome and is now it's own catholic church, etc. it's a mess

Because they're converts with followers that barely went through a process of conversion, the influence of Orthodoxy and Nestorianism is inevitable. They now are supposed to retain this heritage, as opposed to pre-Vatican II or so Rome-centrism