Differences between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox

[Chaldean_Rite]

…says the person with 1300 posts.

you are a sharp one, aren’t you? I’m pleased that you can read, now maybe your friend as well.

That ignoramus needs to get a life because he got all his facts wrong.

 

[josethomas2005]

That is, as we say, a lot of hogwash.

The French in the Middle East did nothing of the kind. There were no “forced conversions” or whatever. Period.

As for India, admittedly the Portuguese were perhaps a bit overzealous, but had it been as you say, there would not even be a Syro-Malabar Church. Think about that.

You said that there were no forced conversions by French in Iraq. I know it surely happened. The French governor in Iraq asked the local muslim sultan to impose heavy taxes on the non-catholics there. As a result these chrsitians were not able to continue in their orthodox church. They had to convert to catholic. Many of the catholics in caldean catholic church were transformed in that way. If you need, I will give you citations and evidences.

 

[malphono]

You said that there were no forced conversions by French in Iraq. I know it surely happened. The French governor in Iraq asked the local muslim sultan to impose heavy taxes on the non-catholics there. As a result these chrsitians were not able to continue in their orthodox church. They had to convert to catholic. Many of the catholics in caldean catholic church were transformed in that way. If you need, I will give you citations and evidences.

I can but repeat what has already been said:

josethomas2005:

Iraq and Syria were under French. Their games led to the creation of Caldean catholic church.

haha get a life.

Chaldean Rite got it in one. There’s nothing I can add.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brothers Malphono and JoseThomas,

I think we can all admit that the secular power oftentimes overzealously forced conversions in some instances, not for any religious reasons, but for political/practical reasons. I believe we can even admit that the secular State would use LOCAL Church officials to enforce its policies, using the Church merely as an arm of its colonialist intentions.

However, brother JoseThomas, I think you will find that whenever the secular forces would force conversions, Rome has been quick to denounce them. Latae sententiae excommunication for those who participated in forced conversions has been in the law books of the Catholic Church since the 12th or 13th century.

Often, when the secular power is removed, many of those who were forced and never converted in heart would revert to their old Faith. But many would also remain in their Catholic faith FREELY. A case in point would be with the Armenians. Many Armenians in the coastal areas remained faithful Catholics to the point of martyrdom, even when the political tide went the other way during the high Middle Ages (I keep bringing up the Armenians because due to recent discussions here, I’ve had a chance to study their history in some detail). The same scenario - free choice to remain Catholics despite political pressure - is evident everywhere in the world. We should not take lightly nor insult the Faith of those Eastern and Oriental Catholics who died to remain in the Catholic Communion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

I think we can all admit that the secular power oftentimes overzealously forced conversions in some instances, not for any religious reasons, but for political/practical reasons. I believe we can even admit that the secular State would use LOCAL Church officials to enforce its policies, using the Church merely as an arm of its colonialist intentions.

And of course that idea is part of my earlier [post=5430959]post[/post].

Keep in mind, though, that it applies in re India and India only in this case. And even there, yes, of course latinizations were imposed, but it wasn’t really a matter of “forced conversion.” Had it been, the Syro-Malabar Church would have ceased to exist in the 16th century. Of course it didn’t: it’s still quite alive and vibrant.

As for the rest, in a word, the contentions about the Levant are, to put it nicely, tripe.

 

[josethomas2005]

And of course that idea is part of my earlier [post=5430959]post[/post].

Keep in mind, though, that it applies in re India and India only in this case. And even there, yes, of course latinizations were imposed, but it wasn’t really a matter of “forced conversion.” Had it been, the Syro-Malabar Church would have ceased to exist in the 16th century. Of course it didn’t: it’s still quite alive and vibrant.

As for the rest, in a word, the contentions about the Levant are, to put it nicely, tripe.

Then what will you say on my following points. Before the arrival of colonialists, there was only one church in India. All followed same practices and traditions. Then after their arrival it first split into 2, then 4. Now I think there are 6. That is the same group of christians are in 6 groups now. How will you console me in that case? Initially the games of Portuguese led to church split into catholics and syrian orthodox. Then when British came, their games split orthodox into 3 groups, that is, Marthoma, syrian orthodox, Indian orthodox. Agian games of British split Indian orthodox into Malankara catholic and Indian orthodox. Their games now continue with the schisms in orthodox church here.
Now scholars argue on going back to our ancient traditions. My question is is it better to have all people in a single church or 6 churches which happened in India?

 

[malphono]

Then what will you say on my following points. Before the arrival of colonialists, there was only one church in India. All followed same practices and traditions. Then after their arrival it first split into 2, then 4. Now I think there are 6. That is the same group of christians are in 6 groups now. How will you console me in that case? Initially the games of Portuguese led to church split into catholics and syrian orthodox. Then when British came, their games split orthodox into 3 groups, that is, Marthoma, syrian orthodox, Indian orthodox. Agian games of British split Indian orthodox into Malankara catholic and Indian orthodox. Their games now continue with the schisms in orthodox church here.
Now scholars argue on going back to our ancient traditions. My question is is it better to have all people in a single church or 6 churches which happened in India?

I have nothing further to say about it: I do not involve myself in the details of Keralite controversies. Others in this forum are better equipped to do so.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brothers Malphono and Jose Thomas…

However, brother JoseThomas, I think you will find that whenever the secular forces would force conversions, Rome has been quick to denounce them. Latae sententiae excommunication for those who participated in forced conversions has been in the law books of the Catholic Church since the 12th or 13th century. …

Blessings,
Marduk

Hello Marduk,

long time no see
Hope you doing well,
Reading the above statement, I find it to be at odd with the History of RCC, speaking mostly the period post-12th and 13th century, just to mention one (inquisition).

joseThomas2005:

Then what will you say on my following points. Before the arrival of colonialists, there was only one church in India. All followed same practices and traditions. Then after their arrival it first split into 2, then 4. Now I think there are 6. That is the same group of christians are in 6 groups now. How will you console me in that case? Initially the games of Portuguese led to church split into catholics and syrian orthodox. Then when British came, their games split orthodox into 3 groups, that is, Marthoma, syrian orthodox, Indian orthodox. Agian games of British split Indian orthodox into Malankara catholic and Indian orthodox. Their games now continue with the schisms in orthodox church here.
Now scholars argue on going back to our ancient traditions. My question is is it better to have all people in a single church or 6 churches which happened in India?

The same thing happened in the See of Antioch EO. or OO when the Jesuits, Carmelites, fransiscans, dominicans etc… came to the Land of Antioch they split every thing that is orthodox into two, and this was a major blow to the Christians of the East, it got them weaker, But by the Grace of GOD I think now we started to see some signs of Hope, of reunifications, last Pascha(Easter) in one of the towns in the Lebanese mountain, the Melkites decided to rejoin their Orthodox brothers and siters in Pascha, from what I have heard that tears were shed by all the clergy when the Melkite walked out of their Church to join the Orthodox they found that the Orthodox clergy and People already waiting for them outside, then from neighboring towns the Maronites also joined the Orthodox and the Melkites, People were radiant the Holy Spirit††† is at work. shweir.com/churches.htm

Glory to Jesus, Glory forever.†††

 

[w_stewart]

Will someone educate me the fundamental differences of the rites within the Catholic Church?

 

[bobzills]

Will someone educate me the fundamental differences of the rites within the Catholic Church?

One difference is the way the creed is said.
In the Western Roman Catholic Church, it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
In most of the Eastern Catholic Churches today, it is said that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Another difference is that in the Eastern Churches, generally they will prefer the use of icons over statues. And generally, when Mary is portrayed in an icon in the East, she is most often with the Christ child in her arms. It is true that there are exceptions to this, but mostly, that is how you will see her. This is not so true in the West, where oftentimes you will see Mary alone and without the Christ child in her arms.

 

[bobzills]

Hello Marduk,

long time no see
Hope you doing well,
Reading the above statement, I find it to be at odd with the History of RCC, speaking mostly the period post-12th and 13th century, just to mention one (inquisition).

Another problem was in Croatia during WWII, where many Orthodox Serbs were given the choice of convert or die.

 

[josethomas2005]

Hello Marduk,

long time no see
Hope you doing well,
Reading the above statement, I find it to be at odd with the History of RCC, speaking mostly the period post-12th and 13th century, just to mention one (inquisition).

The same thing happened in the See of Antioch EO. or OO when the Jesuits, Carmelites, fransiscans, dominicans etc… came to the Land of Antioch they split every thing that is orthodox into two, and this was a major blow to the Christians of the East, it got them weaker, But by the Grace of GOD I think now we started to see some signs of Hope, of reunifications, last Pascha(Easter) in one of the towns in the Lebanese mountain, the Melkites decided to rejoin their Orthodox brothers and siters in Pascha, from what I have heard that tears were shed by all the clergy when the Melkite walked out of their Church to join the Orthodox they found that the Orthodox clergy and People already waiting for them outside, then from neighboring towns the Maronites also joined the Orthodox and the Melkites, People were radiant the Holy Spirit††† is at work. shweir.com/churches.htm

Glory to Jesus, Glory forever.†††

In my opinion, all the eastern christians who survive now should realise the roots of the church in the first centuries and must go back to their Antiochean traditions.

 

[Ignatios]

Another problem was in Croatia during WWII, where many Orthodox Serbs were given the choice of convert or die.

True, and almost all of them chose to die, The Croation claimed that they killed 1,000,000 in a report to the Nazi Germans, however the Germans said that that was not true they only masacre 700,000 in a savage way.

josethomas2005:

In my opinion, all the eastern christians who survive now should realise the roots of the church in the first centuries and must go back to their Antiochean traditions.

Amen, however, it seems as they started to as we see in the link that I provided in my past post, and that not only with the Melkites but also with the Syriac Orthodox, now they are from what I hear very close to the Antiochian Orthodox Church to a point that the main challenge is how to merge both Churches under one heirarch.

 

[josethomas2005]

Amen, however, it seems as they started to as we see in the link that I provided in my past post, and that not only with the Melkites but also with the Syriac Orthodox, now they are from what I hear very close to the Antiochian Orthodox Church to a point that the main challenge is how to merge both Churches under one heirarch.

Hai most respected Ignatios
But my question is which one is the legitimate one: Greek orthodox or Syriac orthodox.
In my opinion, greek orthodox never claimed superior over all. It remained just a sub of constantinople. But syriac orthodox always claims universal superiority. What is your opinion?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Hai most respected Ignatios
But my question is which one is the legitimate one: Greek orthodox or Syriac orthodox.
In my opinion, greek orthodox never claimed superior over all. It remained just a sub of constantinople. But syriac orthodox always claims universal superiority. What is your opinion?

Seems to me a lot of Eastern Orthodox simplify the differences between themselves and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, minimizing them as if they are already one Church with parallel hierarchies – some Catholics do the same when referring to the improving relationship with the Eastern Orthodox. The reality is more complex.

The Syriac Orthodox have an extremely high Petrine view, much more in line with the Roman Catholic Church - this would be extremely problematic in praxis and practice for the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[josethomas2005]

Seems to me a lot of Eastern Orthodox simplify the differences between themselves and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, minimizing them as if they are already one Church with parallel hierarchies – some Catholics do the same when referring to the improving relationship with the Eastern Orthodox. The reality is more complex.

The Syriac Orthodox have an extremely high Petrine view, much more in line with the Roman Catholic Church - this would be extremely problematic in praxis and practice for the Eastern Orthodox.

Dear syro malankara
Will you give some explanantions on which Patriarch Domnus II was declared chief of all bishops. I need some explanations on the events that happened, when and the details. Then what happened during Maximus? Please give some descriptions, because the details I cannot find in the web.

 

[Ignatios]

Hai most respected Ignatios
But my question is which one is the legitimate one: Greek orthodox or Syriac orthodox.
In my opinion, greek orthodox never claimed superior over all. It remained just a sub of constantinople. But syriac orthodox always claims universal superiority. What is your opinion?

Brother Jose, thank you for addressing me as the most respected, and as we say in the Middle east their action speaks much of them, therefore you showed that it is you who is the most respected, thank you again.

Now, the subject is about reunification, and the subject about ligitimacy fanatically is anti-reunification, so long no compromise on matter of faith, and from what we see that last council between the Antiochians and the Syriacs there was unifomity between the two Churches.

Since there is a uniformity between the two Churches, both are ligit. since ligitimacy of the Church starts on whether you have the correct Apostolic Faith or not, and now we do know that both are in no variation, than both are ligit, based on the Faith that both hold to, therefore in my opinion the schism between the two Churches is meaningless and both Churches acknowldges this in some way and by GOD’s Grace it is coming to an end.

As for Antioch being sub Constantinople, this is not the case at all, the Bishop of Constantinople is the First among equals and not the first “above” equals, all Orthodox Churches are in full agreement concerning this.

I honestly never had any knowledge about the Syriac Orthodox claiming “universal superiority”, the only one that I am aware of with such claim is the Pope of Rome, but if you have any literature concerning this please share so we can both look it up.
GOD bless †††

Seems to me a lot of Eastern Orthodox simplify the differences between themselves and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, minimizing them as if they are already one Church with parallel hierarchies – some Catholics do the same when referring to the improving relationship with the Eastern Orthodox. The reality is more complex.

The Syriac Orthodox have an extremely high Petrine view, much more in line with the Roman Catholic Church - this would be extremely problematic in praxis and practice for the Eastern Orthodox.

We do not simplify the differences between us, If one would look and try to examine the diffrences between the Syriac Orthodox (SO) and the Antiochian Orthodox (AO) it would become evedent to him that there is None really to speak of or at least that it matter,
the only major issue that separated us from eachother was the issue over the deity of CHRIST ( Chacedonians namely RC and EO Vs. Non-chalcedonians OO) … and to make long story short…the last council ALL of the OO confessed that JESUS CHRIST † HAS one Nature and that one Nature, HE is fully MAN and fully GOD and that is what the Chalcedonian Churches beleive, minus the “One Nature”
So to simplify it to you, allow me to put like this:
One say that, 2X2=4 and the other say that 2+2=4, so as you see the approach is diffrent bu the results are the same.

However I agree with your statement that there is a much bigger diffrences between the RC and the EO than what some try to imply, and I would add to this that those same Issues between the RC and the EO are the same between the RC and the OO you find the SO or all the OO has the same understanding as the EO concrning the Alteration in the Nicene Creed, Papacy, Immac. Conc. etc.

Could you explain further how the SO has an extremely high petrine view that it agrees with the RCC and differ with the EO, and please if you could I would appreciate any links from the SO concerning this so we can research them.

GOD bless†††

 

[SyroMalankara]

Again I think you are simplifying a host of issues. The Eastern Orthodox elevation by some of its theologians of Platonic philosophy is in contrast to the Antiochian (Syriac) and Alexandrian (Coptic) schools.

As to the Syriac view of the Primacy of Peter and the Syriac Patriarchal successors:

syrianchurch.org/Articles/PrimacyofStPeter.htm

socdigest.org/articles/11sept05.html

indianchristianity.org/syrian.html

 

[JohnVIII]

We do not simplify the differences between us, If one would look and try to examine the diffrences between the Syriac Orthodox (SO) and the Antiochian Orthodox (AO) it would become evedent to him that there is None really to speak of or at least that it matter,
the only major issue that separated us from eachother was the issue over the deity of CHRIST ( Chacedonians namely RC and EO Vs. Non-chalcedonians OO) … and to make long story short…the last council ALL of the OO confessed that JESUS CHRIST † HAS one Nature and that one Nature, HE is fully MAN and fully GOD and that is what the Chalcedonian Churches beleive, minus the “One Nature”
So to simplify it to you, allow me to put like this:
One say that, 2X2=4 and the other say that 2+2=4, so as you see the approach is diffrent bu the results are the same.

However I agree with your statement that there is a much bigger diffrences between the RC and the EO than what some try to imply, and I would add to this that those same Issues between the RC and the EO are the same between the RC and the OO you find the SO or all the OO has the same understanding as the EO concrning the Alteration in the Nicene Creed, Papacy, Immac. Conc. etc.

“2X2=4 and the other say that 2+2=4” - I like that analogy! Can I use that?

Amen! to everything you say!

I pray earnestly for the reunion of the Syrian Orthodox and the Antiochian Orthodox!

 

[JohnVIII]

Again I think you are simplifying a host of issues. The Eastern Orthodox elevation by some of its theologians of Platonic philosophy is in contrast to the Antiochian (Syriac) and Alexandrian (Coptic) schools.

As to the Syriac view of the Primacy of Peter and the Syriac Patriarchal successors:

syrianchurch.org/Articles/PrimacyofStPeter.htm

socdigest.org/articles/11sept05.html

indianchristianity.org/syrian.html

I was about to ask some questions about St. Peter in the Syrian Orthodox view, but as I read through the links you provided I was shocked by a paragraph in your last link you posted indianchristianity.org/syrian.html

The Eucharist is believed to represent the Body and Blood of Christ. But we do not accept the “transubstatiation” of the Roman Catholic Church, whereby the bread and wine transmuted into the very Body and Blood of Christ. Leavened bread and wine are used in the Eucharist and given to the believers as the sacred Body and Blood.

Is this correct!!! Surely the Syrian Orthodox DO believe that the bread and wine are transmuted into the very Body and Blood of Christ and it doesn’t just “represent” the Body and Blood of Christ, don’t they?!?