Differences between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox

[ronyodish]

Continued…

1. Again you put forth words from your own thoughts … where I gave forth words from the Syriac Orthodox Church thoughts, and as I told Marduk previously, what is Material here is what the subject mater, namely the SOC, thinks and sees and NOT your own thoughts or mine.
   Again and again here it is from the mouth of the SOC:
   ***Relationships with the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches

" Among all Christian Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are closer to the Oriental Churches in spirituality, doctrine, and in historical experience. Dialogue with this family of Churches has the potential to be the most fruitful."***

The words you gave, particularly the above quote, were the opinion and thought of a Syriac Orthodox individual of a Syriac Orthodox website, no more official, or “from the mouth of the SOC”, than the opinions and thoughts on the matter that I, an Assyrian-Chaldean, have written. You make it sound as if the above quoted opinion is the Dogma of the Syriac Orthodox Church! The quote comes from an individual Syriac Orthodox, not the Syriac Orthodox Church. Besides, the individual who wrote the above, might likely have the same inaccurate understanding of Catholics as you do, that our Churches are nothing more than rites of the Roman Catholic Church, and our theologies are nothing more than Roman Catholic theology. If that’s the case, then I can see why he would think that among all Christian Churches, the Eastern Orthodox are closer to the Oriental Orthodox, thereby ignoring the Oriental Catholic Churches.

" The delegates concluded, 'We recognize in each other the one Orthodox faith of the Church… On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement…"
sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/index.html

Now, this quote above is more official, but it is no more significant than what the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch, H.H. Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, said to H.H. Pope John Paul II, in 1984. From the same website above:

“Our two Churches are closely linked by many common bonds. There is the bond of St. Peter, the chief of Apostles; we profess the same faith declared in the Nicean Creed; we cherish a closeness to the patristic teaching and traditions of the early Church; we are bound by our mutual recognition of ministry and sacraments, and in a special way, by a deep devotion to Mary, Yoldat Aloho, Theotokos.”

I bolded the above to show that the Syriac Orthodox Church also considers the Roman Catholic Church to hold the same orthodox faith declared in the Nicean Creed. So, on the faith, we are all true or orthodox, whether we are in the Catholic Communion, Eastern Orthodox Communion, Oriental Orthodox Communion, or in the Assyrian Church of the East.

I mean what more than this could be said to convince you.

I’m sorry, but you haven’t convinced me of anything significant in regards the question of who is closer to the Oriental Orthodox. I still maintain that the Oriental Catholics are closer to the Oriental Orthodox, than Eastern Orthodox to Oriental Orthodox.

GOD bless †††

And God bless you too!

Rony

 

[Ghosty]

Also, Aquinas posited the notion that man’s nature changed as a result of the fall.

This is simply incorrect. Aquinas held the exact same view as St. Athanasius, namely that death is the result of natural human properties, but that it’s against our intended design.

From the Summa Theologia:

Thirdly, a thing may be incorruptible on the part of its efficient cause; in this sense man was incorruptible and immortal in the state of innocence. For, as Augustine says: “God made man immortal as long as he did not sin; so that he might achieve for himself life or death.” For man’s body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic vigor of immortality, but by reason of a supernatural force given by God to the soul, whereby it was enabled to preserve the body from all corruption so long as it remained itself subject to God. This entirely agrees with reason; for since the rational soul surpasses the capacity of corporeal matter, as above explained (76, 1), it was most properly endowed at the beginning with the power of preserving the body in a manner surpassing the capacity of corporeal matter.

Furthermore, St. Athanasius directly said that death was the punishment for sin. Yes, it arises from our material nature, but we would have been preserved from it through Grace, and as a result of sin our punishment is death.

From “On the Incarnation”:

When this happened, men began to die, and corruption ran riot among them and held sway over them to an even more than natural degree,*** because it was the penalty of which God had forewarned them for transgressing the commandment***.

The Latin teaching on this is in exact conformity with St. Athanasius, I’m afraid. It is actually some Eastern Orthodox who have denied that death is natural to man, not the Catholic Church.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ronyodish]

Hi,

I’ll be moving to California in a few days, and will try and establish an Internet connection there, so I may not be able to post here for a while.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Aramis]

Hi,

I’ll be moving to California in a few days, and will try and establish an Internet connection there, so I may not be able to post here for a while.

God bless,

Rony

My prayers for a Safe journey! :byzsoc:

 

[antgaria]

Hi,

I’ll be moving to California in a few days, and will try and establish an Internet connection there, so I may not be able to post here for a while.

God bless,

Rony

Rony!!!

I have been only able to get limited time at my computer because I was visiting St. Peter’s parish, and I talked about you all the time. And now that I am going back today, I hear that you are moving back here?

I’m teasing. My prayers for a safe journey as well. And I hope to see you the next time I come back.

Love,
Anthony

 

[Ignatios]

ronyodish:

Schisms in the universal Church occurred over various expressions or formulas of the faith, to which each of the sides thought the other was using a wrong formulation that departed them from the faith of the Apostles. So yes, schisms occurred over traditions, theological traditions…

Dear Ronyodish
??? I am sorry Rony. BUT, it seems like you mixed many different Issues together, one must distinguish what is expressions or formulas of the faith from what is traditions from what is communions what is Rites. It seems like you are using them here interchangeably, all those differ from one another.
The subject matter is,( I will try to shed some light on those issues, so we don’t mix apples with oranges) Which two communion are closer to each others of the three, namely the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or, for the sake of argument and to avoid going into another confusing issue let us call it the Catholic Church for now instead of the RCC.
What you went off on was, which tradition is closer to the Coptic Orthodox tradition ( Alexandrian tradition) and you rightly named the Coptic Catholic, well of course the Coptic Catholic( Alexandrian tradition) is closer to the Coptic Orthodox tradition( Alexandrian tradition) than the Antiochian or the Western tradition and like wise the Antiochian is for the Antiochian than the Alexandrian or the Western and the same goes for the Western also, maybe I should have clarified this before hand? Those things are to be understood when one speaks of them, they go without saying, I though at least.
BUT, and again it is what communion and NOT what tradition.
Now, to be more clear on this issue let us speak historically so we can avoid further confusion.
The Schism did not happen over tradition or Theological tradition as you have stated at all, how? Why?
Because as I have stated earlier that tradition in itself was not the point of conflict, but the theology of some influential figures, and not an “expression or formulas” of one tradition, let me give you an example, St Cyril was an Alexandrian and his Theology or approach or formula or expression concerning the Christology was Alexandrian, was it not? YES it was, Now was that accepted by all Christians from any tradition YES OFCOURSE, Let me pose another question for you, what formula were used during the 3rd and 4th Ecumenical Council to refute the Christology of the other party???.. ST. CYRIL”S ….or if I may pin point it for you The Alexandrian formula if you will. SO therefore schism was not over traditions, for if it was, than St. Cyril was to be included in that schism, thus it was not over tradition but as I said earlier was over the understanding of the theology of some influential figures including some politics and languages etc…
Sorry again but I think your reasoning for this is not reasonable.
Now , again on the other hand, the tradition in itself was not the point of AGREEMENT either, let us take another example here from the Antiochian, take Eutyches, presbyter and archimandrite at Constantinople from the Antiochian tradition, yet his Theology was followed mostly in the land of Antioch and he was anathematized by the E.C., and likewise Nestorios was Syriac but he was also the Bishop of Constantinople yet he was excommunicated by all including the Alexandrian and the list goes on …

Now, as for the the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church those two are closer to each others than the RCC or the Coptic Catholic, why? And How?, simply because the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church Both are of the Antiochian tradition, as a matter of fact ALL the EASTERN Orthodox Churches now are of the Antiochian tradition ( Please Note carefully the word EASTERN Orthodox) but are all the Orthodox Churches follow the Antichian tradition? NO, we also have the Western Orthodox tradition, that we cannot include them with the same tradition simply because they follow the Western tradition.
Now when we compare the Churches in relation to communion( what they believe or their Dogma=something that has to do with salvation) and NOT tradition , again we find as the Syriac orthodox stated through their official website, that the Eastern Orthodox are the closer to them, why? and how? Because of what they hold on to, IAW their Dogmas, let us throw another example here to clarify things.
Take for an instance, the Dogma of the Pope as being dogmatically the HEAD of the Entire Church on earth and the Dogma of his infallibility , the addition of the Filioque, the Indulgences, The Immaculate Conception and the list goes on … we find the Syriac or the OOC on the same line with the Eastern Orthodox Church,

… . By the way, the Latin, Antiochene, and Alexandrian traditions were not the only traditions in the early universal Church.

If I am understanding correctly, I think you are confusing what tradition is.
However, I will give you the benefit of doubt and say that the only traditions that I have read about are three: The Antiochene, the Alexandrine and the Western, if there is a fourth one that I am not aware of, please share it with us.

 

[Ignatios]

… I will disagree with you and say that it is much easier for unity between the Coptic Catholic and the Coptic Orthodox than unity between the Coptic Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox of Alexandria, because of the shared tradition in the former, and the different traditions in the latter….

Rony.
You are forgetting that the reason of the schism between the two happened despite the shared tradition, IAW the communion with the RCC was the reason to split the communion of one and the same tradition in which it made the communion with the RCC a much stronger reason to separated rather than the same tradition that united them, because if what you are implying is real than schism wouldn’t have taken place.
Again, If unity is to be true, tradition cannot and should not be the cause of it,
nor a communion for the sake of unity cause true unity, but the unity of faith what cause true communion and then and only then, traditions are diversity towards unity and not the other way around, IF we rightly understand what the tradition is that is.

… unless the Greek Orthodox abandon their Greek-Constantinopolitan tradition and adopt the Coptic-Alexandrian tradition.

??? huh, excuse my ignorance, but what is the “Greek-Constantinopolitan tradition” ???

Allow me to stop here, because this needs to be explained further and I just don’t have the time right now regretfully for it, BUT please consider the following,
The traditions that we are speaking about are a geographical line, BUT it is not that simple since you find some outside their geographical lines.
This is not a simple study to explain in a forum, BUT I promise next time I will explain as much as I can, The Antiochian, the Alexandrian and the Western.
the Antiochian include, the Western and the Eastern Syrian Rites, the Antiochian Rite the Jerusalem Rite, the Byzantine Rite, the Maronite Rite, and it goes on to include those within the Eastern Rite etc etc etc…
the Alexandrians are, ( I will mention breifly) the Egyption Rite and the Ethiopian Rite etc etc etc…
The Western ( again breifly),The Ambrosian Rite, the Gallican Rite, etc etc etc…

I really got to go now my appology that I couldn’t stay untill it is ended but I will be back in the next few days GOD willing and I will answer the rest of your reply.
GOD Bless †††

 

[malphono]

Now, as for the the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church those two are closer to each others than the RCC or the Coptic Catholic, why? And How?, simply because the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church Both are of the Antiochian tradition

Sorry to jump in here, but the above is not quite correct. While there are slight variations in usage between it and Constantinople, the Antiochian Orthodox tradition is still Byzantine. It is not Antiochene at its core.

 

[Aramis]

Sorry to jump in here, but the above is not quite correct. While there are slight variations in usage between it and Constantinople, the Antiochian Orthodox tradition is still Byzantine. It is not Antiochene at its core.

Yup. The term Syro-Byzantine, used to refer to both the Melkite Catholic and Antiochian Orthodox churches is helpful; it’s a major branch within the Byzantine Rite, and is just those two; they are Syrian-influenced Byzantines.

 

[Ignatios]

Ronyodish:

The belief has always been the same, across all Apostolic Churches…

The belief “was the same” that is why all the Apostolic Churches were in full communion with each others, BUT when new Dogmas ( new belief new doctrine concerning salvation NOT Christology or Mariology only ) came to play by one Apostolic without the others, the other Apostolic Churches did not accepted it, for whatever reason, Schism happened and they are no more in full communion since Dogmatic belief are now not (c)atholic. Do you disagree with the above? If not, then, show me the unity of faith and I will show full communion.

… so the belief, the faith, is not what makes two Churches closest to one another.

According to the above, then, the Churches who follow the Monophysitism, despite the difference in faith with another Church, they are closer to a church that it does not accept Monophysitism than a Church that follows the same belief but not the same tradition???

…Again, I will disagree with you and say that tradition is what makes two Churches closest to one another. The Coptic Catholic is closer to, and virtually the same, as the Coptic Orthodox not just in language, history, and nationality, but also in theology, liturgy, spirituality, and disciplines. They can not be one yet because of the fullness of communion that each has with their respective Communions…emphesis mine

If they cannot be one, as you have suggested above than how could they be virtually the same ??? If they cannot be one, then, this denotes that they are not virtually the same, As they say “fever denotes infection”.

… Once the fullness of communion is established, the two will literally become one particular Church, not just two particular Churches in full communion. Again, this is not the case with the Greek Orthodox of Alexandria, which will have to decide whether to change her tradition, or to remain with the Coptic Orthodox as two particular Churches of two traditions in full communion. So, the gap is closer between the Coptic Catholics and the Coptic Orthodox vs. the Greek Orthodox of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox.
Also, you are again lumping the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches all together under the term “RCC”. The Roman Catholic Church (or Latin Church) with its Holy See at Rome, is but one Church in the Communion of Catholic Churches, though off course, she presides in charity among the Churches, and her bishop, holds the universal Primacy. Nevertheless, the proper way to speak of our Communion is the Catholic Church (CC), not the Roman Catholic Church.

You accused me in lumping the Eastern and oriental churches with the RCC, BUT you in the above separating yourself from the RCC, and saying that the “…the gap is closer between the Coptic Catholics and the Coptic Orthodox vs. the Greek Orthodox of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox.” Forgetting that there is no union for any of the Eastern/oriental Catholic Churches without Rome, IAW, Until Rome achieve a full communion with the Orthodox Churches Eastern and/or Oriental you have nothing between the OCC and OOC, and since this gap is much larger between the RCC and the OOC and/or the EOC, than the same gap now applies to all the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches since the final decision is to the RCC and not the other way around as we saw it happened with the “Zoghby intiative” … there goes your theory, Now since the Orthodox Churches Oriental/Eastern are closer to each others than the RCC is to any of the two, that means that union is closer between the OOC and the EOC.

The words you gave, particularly the above quote, were the opinion and thought of a Syriac Orthodox individual of a Syriac Orthodox website, no more official, or “from the mouth of the SOC”, than the opinions and thoughts on the matter that I, an Assyrian-Chaldean, have written. You make it sound as if the above quoted opinion is the Dogma of the Syriac Orthodox Church! The quote comes from an individual Syriac Orthodox, not the Syriac Orthodox Church. Besides, the individual who wrote the above, might likely have the same inaccurate understanding of Catholics as you do, that our Churches are nothing more than rites of the Roman Catholic Church, and our theologies are nothing more than Roman Catholic theology. If that’s the case, then I can see why he would think that among all Christian Churches, the Eastern Orthodox are closer to the Oriental Orthodox, thereby ignoring the Oriental Catholic Churches.

Are you trying to convince me in the above that your opinion is equal or just as official as, what had been listed in the official WEBSITE OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF THE SYRIAC ORTHODOX CHURCH OF ANTIOCH??? If you look at the bottom of the page of that website, you will find the following:
“Copyright © Syriac Orthodox Resources. All Rights Reserved.”
Does this means anything to you?

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

_I’m sorry, but you haven’t convinced me of anything significant in regards the question of who is closer to the Oriental Orthodox. I still maintain that the Oriental Catholics are closer to the Oriental Orthodox, than Eastern Orthodox to Oriental Orthodox

Nuh, I wouldn’t even try to convince you or anyone else, I just state the truth as it is with deeds and proofs, and those who have ears let them here and those who have eyes let them read and decide for themselves, May GOD enlighten the minds and open the hearts of the hearers of the truth, whomever they may be.
And GOD bless you on both of your journeys the earthly one (to California) and the spiritual one.

Sorry to jump in here, but the above is not quite correct. While there are slight variations in usage between it and Constantinople, the Antiochian Orthodox tradition is still Byzantine. It is not Antiochene at its core.

Dear Malphono
Don’t be sorry, thank you for jumping in,
Sir, there is NO such a thing as “ Antiochian Orthodox (tradition)” there is an Antiochian tradition, or you may say the Antiochian family, which it means that within this family there is a various individual, those individuals(sort of speak), are known as the (RITES), now within the Antiochian family(tradition), there is two RITES namely the 1)Western Syrian Rite and the 2)Eastern Syrian Rites, and from each of those two Rites another Rites springs off, I will not go into them all, BUT the Byzantine Rite springs off the Western Syrian Rite, So to simplify it look at it like this, the grandfather is the Antiochian tradition, the children are the western and the eastern Syrian Rites and one of the grandsons is the byzantine Rite who sprung of the western Syrian Rite known also as the byzantine Liturgical Rite. So yes it is Antiochian at its core.

Yup. The term Syro-Byzantine, used to refer to both the Melkite Catholic and Antiochian Orthodox churches is helpful; it’s a major branch within the Byzantine Rite, and is just those two; they are Syrian-influenced Byzantines.

Dear Aramis,

I have heard of the Syro-byzantine before, but this is was used to avoid a long explanation and to refer to one of the Churches who follow the Byzantine Rite namely as you have stated above the Melkites Orthodox and/or catholic, So long we reffering only to the People and not the liturgical Rite itself, in another instance I have heard it used to elaborate in indirect way that the Byzantine Rite is of the Syrian Rite (Antiochian tradition) thus they said Syro- Byzantine, also they could have been reffering to the Chanting in the Byzantine Rite, example the Orthodox Church of Antioch during the Divine Liturgy( Byzantine liturgical Rite) they chant more than those in the Orthodox Church In America( OCA), Now Note, that the Rite is still the same No changes at all, except the way they chant, and there is nothing wrong if you use those terms, But I think you went wrong when you referred to it as “ a major branch within the Byzantine Rite”, the Problem is , that there is no branches that sprung of the Byzantine Rite,
And last, as for being Syrian-influenced Byzantine, I agree that we are Syrian influenced, but being Byzantine? … well I am sure that there is some Byzantine blood in us, but also there is Aramaic and Arabic and Hebrew and Phoenicians etc… We are just like the Americans, a melting pot too of many civilization except that we are an ancient melting pot.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[malphono]

Dear Malphono
Don’t be sorry, thank you for jumping in,
Sir, there is NO such a thing as “ Antiochian Orthodox (tradition)” there is an Antiochian tradition, or you may say the Antiochian family, which it means that within this family there is a various individual, those individuals(sort of speak), are known as the (RITES), now within the Antiochian family(tradition), there is two RITES namely the 1)Western Syrian Rite and the 2)Eastern Syrian Rites, and from each of those two Rites another Rites springs off, I will not go into them all, BUT the Byzantine Rite springs off the Western Syrian Rite, So to simplify it look at it like this, the grandfather is the Antiochian tradition, the children are the western and the eastern Syrian Rites and one of the grandsons is the byzantine Rite who sprung of the western Syrian Rite known also as the byzantine Liturgical Rite. So yes it is Antiochian at its core.

Sorry but no, that is not correct. The Antiochene Tradition is, at its core, Syriac. While it is true that the Byzantine usage developed from the Syriac, it happened in Constantinople and not in Antioch. Byzantine usage came to Antioch from Constantinople.

Further, as others have already noted (in this and other threads) the claim that the East Syriac tradition springs from Antioch at all is tenuous at best.

 

[Wesley7]

I didn’t know that people on the internet actually contribute to Ecumenical Dialogue between the existing patriarchates.

 

[Wesley7]

I didn’t know people on the internet actually contribute to ecumenical dialogue between patriarchates.

 

[josethomas2005]

Sorry but no, that is not correct. The Antiochene Tradition is, at its core, Syriac. While it is true that the Byzantine usage developed from the Syriac, it happened in Constantinople and not in Antioch. Byzantine usage came to Antioch from Constantinople.

.

No, No. The byzantine liturgy was just a copy of Antiochean liturgy at its root. You should note that bishop of Constantinople was unde Antioch before AD 380s. Later constantinople might have modified it. Then after that when Greek orthodox patriarch of Antioch was placed under Constantinople, they might have adopted Byzantine liturgy which was Antiochean at its root.

 

[malphono]

No, No. The byzantine liturgy was just a copy of Antiochean liturgy at its root. You should note that bishop of Constantinople was unde Antioch before AD 380s. Later constantinople might have modified it. Then after that when Greek orthodox patriarch of Antioch was placed under Constantinople, they might have adopted Byzantine liturgy which was Antiochean at its root.

I know the history quite well. The Byzantine liturgy was hardly a “copy” of anything. It was a development. Yes, Antioch was first, and I said as much. However, the modifications made by Constantinople were such that the liturgy ceased being Antiochene and developed into an entity unto itself.

And BTW, the so-called “Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch” was an invention of Constantinople. Be that as it may, the liturgy it adopted was the Byzantine liturgy which sprang from the Antiochene but is not Antiochene at it’s root.

 

[Ignatios]

Sorry but no, that is not correct. The Antiochene Tradition is, at its core, Syriac. While it is true that the Byzantine usage developed from the Syriac, it happened in Constantinople and not in Antioch. Byzantine usage came to Antioch from Constantinople.

Further, as others have already noted (in this and other threads) the claim that the East Syriac tradition springs from Antioch at all is tenuous at best.

I know the history quite well. The Byzantine liturgy was hardly a “copy” of anything. It was a development. Yes, Antioch was first, and I said as much. However, the modifications made by Constantinople were such that the liturgy ceased being Antiochene and developed into an entity unto itself.

And BTW, the so-called “Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch” was an invention of Constantinople. Be that as it may, the liturgy it adopted was the Byzantine liturgy which sprang from the Antiochene but is not Antiochene at it’s root.

Malphono,

It is what it is, and any Catholic, Orthodox or protestant or any one who had done a study on the tradition and Liturgical Rites will disagree with you, reading what you have stated above is a clear evidence of your lack of knowledge of what tradition is and what Liturgical Rites are, I will not sit here and say and argue, But I truly suggest on you to study and search this subject, I will give you a title to start with and if you did your home work right you will find out that you were waaaaay off, start with the Title " The Liturgucal Families and Rites" or better off here is a link for you only to start with, knowing that this site is very very brief and there is a lot more to learn, but in this brief link you will find out how wrong you were:
melkite.org.au/default.asp?id=344

Alexandrian Rite:
1- Coptic rite (indigenous Christians of Egypt)
2- Ethiopian rite (Ethiopians)

Antiochian Rite:

1-East Syrian
a) Syro-Chaldean (Chaldean Catholics)
b) Syro-Malabar (Syro-Malabarese Catholics In India)

2-West Syrian
a) Syro-Antiochean (Syrian Catholics)
b) Syro-Malankarese (Malankarese Catholics in India)
c) Syro-Maronite (Maronite Catholics in Lebanon)

Armenian Rite (Armenians)

Byzantine Rite:
1-Greek-Byzantine (Greeks)
2-Melkite-Byzantine (Melkites)
3-Byzantine-Slavonic:
a. Bulgarian (Bulgarians)
b. Ukrainian ( Ukrainians)
c. Ruthenian
d. Russian old (Raskolniks)
e. Russian Reformed (Russians, Serbs)
f. Hungarian
g. Slovaks

      4-Rumano-Byzantine: (Rumanians)
      5-Italo-Byzantine:
            a. Rite of Monastery at Grottaferrrate (near Rome)
            b. Italo-Albanese (Italians of Greek and Albanian origin)

6-Georgian-Byzantine (Georgians)
7-Roman-Byzantine (presented in the liturgical book Euchologian, published by order of Pope Benedict XIV, 1754, but never put into practice.

Rite of the Western Church:

      1- Romans or Latin
      2- Ambrosian (centered in Milan)
      3- Mozarabic or Spanish
      4- Celtic and Gallican (no longer exist).

and if you really want to go further in your study check this book out:
liturgica.com/cart/bookInfo.jsp?catNo=BA028

I will not go further in this since it became clear that you are not acquainted with this subject, my apology for any offence.

GOD bless †††

 

[SyroMalankara]

Ignatios,

Malphono has stated the roots of each Tradition accurately.

If you look at the information you posted it lists:

Melkite-Byzantine - they share the same Liturgical patrimony that the Antiochian Orthodox use, note that they are listed under Byzantine Rite.

The Syro-Antiochians listed under Antiochian Rite are the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Churches, which share a similar Liturgy as the Syro-Malankara Catholic, Malankara Orthodox, and Maronite Catholic Churches.

If you attend both of these Churches at any time, the differences between Byzantine Rite Antiochian Orthodox (and Melkite Catholics) and Syriac-Rite Syriac Orthodox (Syriac / Syro-Malankara Catholics) will be visible upon entering the Church building.

For example, this is what a Melkite Catholic or Antiochian Orthodox Church would look like:


Here’s what a Syriac / Malankara Orthodox or Syriac / Syro-Malankara Catholic altar looks like:
http://www.stmarkshamilton.ca/images/images/pics/HisEminence/13.jpg

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios,

Malphono has stated the roots of each Tradition accurately.

If you look at the information you posted it lists:

Melkite-Byzantine - they share the same Liturgical patrimony that the Antiochian Orthodox use, note that they are listed under Byzantine Rite.

The Syro-Antiochians listed under Antiochian Rite are the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Churches, which share a similar Liturgy as the Syro-Malankara Catholic, Malankara Orthodox, and Maronite Catholic Churches.

If you attend both of these Churches at any time, the differences between Byzantine Rite Antiochian Orthodox (and Melkite Catholics) and Syriac-Rite Syriac Orthodox (Syriac / Syro-Malankara Catholics) will be visible upon entering the Church building.

I have noticed this, that is why I posted it and I think that is where he is getting his conclusion from, and that is why I said it is very very brief, and that is why I posted that link after it for that book, here is what is listed under the "Description"title of that book if you read it:

"DESCRIPTION

This short paper back offers a succinct overview of the evolution of the Christian liturgical tradition in both the East and the West by a leading contemporary Syrian scholar and Bishop. It is a concise treatment that covers Eastern and Western Liturgical Rites, and the major elements therein. In the Eastern Rite: the Alexandrian Family (including the Egyptian and Ethiopian liturgical rite) and the Antiochian Family (including the Western Syrian [Antiochian, Jerusalem, Byzantine, Maronite and Armenian] and the Eastern Syrian [Nestorian, Chaldean and Malabarian] Liturgical Rites are discussed. Within the Western Liturgical Rites, the Roman, Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic and Celtic liturgical rites are treated."liturgica.com/cart/bookInfo.jsp?catNo=BA028

Yes I think I added to his confusion by posting this link , BUT, my appology, I only meant to help, but here is some more links, and remember that this subject can be very confusing that is why I suggest studying it properly through well emphesised book or someone knowledgeable on this issue:

"Antiochene Rite designates the family of liturgies originally used in the Patriarchate of Antioch: that of the Apostolic Constitutions; then that of St. James in Greek, the Syriac Liturgy of St. James, and the other Syriac Anaphoras. The line may be further continued to the Byzantine Rite (the older Liturgy of St. Basil and the later and shorter one of St. John Chrysostom), and through it to the Armenian use. But these no longer concern the Church of Antioch"reference.com/browse/Antiochian%20Rite

 

[malphono]

Malphono has stated the roots of each Tradition accurately.

Thank you.

The line may be further continued to the Byzantine

Notice the bolded portion of the the quote in your previous post.

In any case, my involvement in this tangent of the current thread is now over. It is merely going around in circles and is certainly not productive. I should have known better than to get involved in the first place.