u/luke_fowl

Credits: https://syriacpress.com/blog/2026/05/30/mar-paulos-iii-nona-enthroned-as-new-patriarch-of-the-chaldean-church-in-the-presence-of-patriarchs-of-the-syriac-rite/

L-R:

Ibrahim Isaac Sedrak, patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Church

Raphaël Bedros XXI Minassian, patriarch of the Armenian Catholic Church

Youssef Absi, patriarch of the Melkite Greek (Rûm) Catholic Church

Youssef III Younan, patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Church

Bechara Boutros al-Rahi, patriarch of the Syriac Maronite Church

Paul 3 Nona, patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church

Awa III, patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East

Aphrem II, patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church

Gewargis III, patriarch of the Ancient Church of the East

Claudio Gugerotti, Prefect of the Vatican Dicastery for the Eastern Churches

I'm not sure who's on the far right, if anyone knows, please do let me know. My guess would be that he's a representative bishop of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, since I think he's the only patriarch with jurisdiction in the area that wasn't there and he's wearing a klobuk.

I also have some questions about the garments of the coptic catholic patriarch and the melkite patriarch. Why is Patriarch Ibrahim's habit very different from the Pope Tawadros's? He's wearing a klobuk like the byzantines and his cassock seems identical to Patriarch Youssef 3 Younan's. I have also noticed that all the catholic patriarchs have robes lined in red, except for Patriarch Youssef Absi's, whose cassock seems to be like any other byzantine monk's. Added to the fact that he's not also wearing a panagia/engolpion and/or pectoral cross, is there any reason for this?

Since I wrote a long response to another comment on a post regarding this topic, I figured I could write a post anyway instead of letting my research go to waste. When I refer to orthodoxy as a whole, it refers to our eastern brethren not in communion with Rome, i.e. the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Church of the East.

Contrary to popular opinion, and historical misunderstanding, we have 0 christological disagreements with the orthodox churches, just ecclesial disagreements particularly regarding the papacy. The eastern catholic churches, for example, believe the exact same things that their orthodox counterparts believe, just that they’re in communion with Rome (Orientalium Ecclesiarum Art. 5).

All sacraments celebrated by orthodoxy are considered fully valid. When an orthodox converts to catholicism, they do not need to receive confirmation again, for example. We recognize their martyrs as saints, as seen in the 21 coptic martyrs. 

An orthodox bishop is a true bishop, a successor of the apostles. An orthodox priest can, and rightfully so, celebrate the eucharist as well as hear confessions. An orthodox visitor is allowed to receive communion when attending a catholic mass. We are allowed to receive communion in an orthodox church, although the orthodox typically won’t allow us to unless it’s an emergency. 

While orthodoxy is indeed in schism from us, their sacraments remain fully valid and recognized by the Catholic Church, unlike the anglicans (Code of Canon Law, Can. 844).

What about the issue of the Filioque and transubstantiation with the EO?

The Filioque is a non-disagreement, as far as theology goes. The EO still protest the addition of the Filioque by virtue of its unilateral decision to an ecumenical creed, but the theology of it is a non-issue in on itself. This is why the eastern catholics consider themselves fully catholic but with the same beliefs as the orthodox. After all, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Cyril both explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Holy Father and the Holy Son, and they are both still considered the experts on the topic. Here is an honest, non-strawmanning reflection on it: https://www.oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/the-filoque-clause

The core is that the clause "and the son" makes sense only in latin but not in greek, because the connotations of it in different languages are different, notwithstanding the questionable decision to include it in the first place regardless of its theology. The english translation we are generally accustomed to neutralizes the connotations and makes it harder for us to grasp the nuances of latin and greek.

The Filioque issue is a bit more complicated. Most articles I've read from both sides, especially the EO side, seem very keen to strawman each other. A melkite priest, or maybe a deacon (it was a table discussion), described it to me that in greek, adding "the Son" would really imply that the Father can't spirate the Spirit without the Son, which is understandably a horrible theological stance. The greeks, not understanding that this implication didn't exist in latin or most other language, mistakenly thought, and taught, that the Latin Church was teaching heresy. St. Maximus the Confessor realized this and pointed out this misunderstanding and has basically been the uniting point between us. St. Theophylact of Ohrid has also expressed the same sentiment.

But this misunderstanding still persists and became a litmus test in the same way the tridentine mass has become one with the traditionalists. You will find both eastern orthodox theologians who support and condemn the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, although they will all unanimously condemn the addition of the Filioque into the Creed anyway. If I'm not mistaken, it was really the Paris School (Lossky and Co.) that brought this back into the spotlight and reject the theology of the Filioque. As far as I know, the EO as a whole has never made a formal declaration for or against the theology of the Filioque, but rather insisting that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, with or without the Son.

In my personal opinion, I share Pope St. Leo 3's stance on this. The Filioque is orthodox catholic doctrine, but adding it to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is a stupid decision because not everything necessary for salvation is stuffed in it anyway. That would in fact be the CCC and not the Creed.

Transubstantiation (transformation of substance) is also a non-issue, since it merely describes the fact that the bread and wine truly changes into the Body and Blood of Christ, which all the apostolic churches agree on. The greeks simply prefer the term metousiosis, which literally means "change in essence." Theologically speaking, substance and essence are the same thing, e.g. the substance of God is the same as the essence of God. The main issue is that they don't like the attempt of even explaining, no matter how vague, this change, where we do it by "separating" the substance from the accidents. On the other hand, the OO don't have a term on its own, simply saying that the bread and wine changed into the Body and Blood, full stop. Everyone agrees that after the anaphora, what we consume is not bread and wine anymore, and that Jesus is not just within, symbolically, or memorially in the host, but rather His very Body and Blood. From the EO's Synod of Jerusalem (basically their Trent), Confession of Dositheus, Decree 17 (emphasis mine):

>In the celebration of [the Eucharist] we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted, and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.

What about the issue of the miaphysitism with the OO?

Regarding the OO and dyophisitism, here is a common declaration between Pope Paul 6 and Pope Shenouda 3 (one of the most respected and beloved coptic pope):

>We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.

Similarly, a joint declaration by Pope JP2 and Baselios Mar Thoma Mathews of the Indian Orthodox Church (emphasis mine):

>Our Lord Jesus Christ is one, perfect in his humanity and perfect in his divinity – at once consubstantial with the Father in his divinity, and consubstantial with us in his humanity. His humanity is one with his divinity – without change, without commingling, without division and without separation. In the Person of the Eternal Logos Incarnate are united and active in a real and perfect way the divine and human natures, with all their properties, faculties and operations. ... It is this faith which we both confess. Its content is the same in both communions; in formulating that content in the course of history, however, differences have arisen, in terminology and emphasis. We are convinced that these differences are such as can co-exist in the same communion and therefore need not and should not divide us, especially when we proclaim Him to our brothers and sisters in the world in terms which they can more easily understand.

As a coptic friend of mine once said dryly, "Ephesus and Chalcedon is what happen when romans, egyptians, greeks, and syrians walk into a bar..."

The OO are miaphysites, but the understanding that we now have is that there really isn't any difference between dyophysitism and miaphysitism. And the only existing problem to be difference in emphasis, where we emphasize the duality of Christ and they emphasize the unity of Christ, both of which are not wrong. The problem was linguistic and cultural differences making it previously difficult to understand the nuances of this (non-)problem.

What about the issue of nestorianism with the COE?

The COE, along with Nestorius himself, has always rejected what we call nestorianism, i.e. Christ having 2 persons. Nestorius himself, in the Bazaar of Heracleides, affirmed Chalcedon and felt vindicated by Pope Leo the Great.

Here is the excerpt form the common declaration between Pope JP 2 and Mar Dinkha 4:

>Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting "one and another", the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.
Christ therefore is not an "ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour". In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of God" and also as "the Mother of Christ". We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.
This is the unique faith that we profess in the mystery of Christ. The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord’s Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.

So similar issue with the OO and miaphysitism, see above.

What about their rejection of the papacy? Is this is a heresy?

Rejecting the papacy is a matter of schism and not heresy according to canon law (Code of Canon Law, Can. 751), and even then all the orthodox churches have affirmed the primacy of Rome and the special honour of its bishop. As Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios 1 stated, "The Bishop of Rome is marked out as the one who has the presidency of charity and is the first bishop in rank and honour in the whole Body of the Lord." And let us not forget that a lot of great saints have also rejected orthodox beliefs, like St. Thomas Aquinas's rejection of the Immaculate Conception, without them being heretics.

So where exactly does orthodoxy stand?

Look at Unitatis Redintegratio, a decree from an ecumenical council, especially articles 15-17. The Church lauds the eastern churches' theology, both the ones in communion with Rome and not, together. Thus not excluding in any way the teachings of the orthodox churches:

>What has just been said about the lawful variety that can exist in the Church must also be taken to apply to the differences in theological expression of doctrine. In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. Where the authentic theological traditions of the Eastern Church are concerned, we must recognize the admirable way in which they have their roots in Holy Scripture, and how they are nurtured and given expression in the life of the liturgy. They derive their strength too from the living tradition of the apostles and from the works of the Fathers and spiritual writers of the Eastern Churches. Thus they promote the right ordering of Christian life and, indeed, pave the way to a full vision of Christian truth.
All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church. We thank God that many Eastern children of the Catholic Church, who preserve this heritage, and wish to express it more faithfully and completely in their lives, are already living in full communion with their brethren who follow the tradition of the West.

This is clearly contrasted with the treatment of protestants and other separated churches, e.g. the independent catholics, in chapter 3, which is quite negative although very diplomatically:

>However, since these Churches and ecclesial Communities, on account of their different origins, and different teachings in matters of doctrine on the spiritual life, vary considerably not only with us, but also among themselves, the task of describing them at all adequately is extremely difficult; and we have no intention of making such an attempt here.
Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.

Also keep in mind that schismatics and excommunicates are not generally permitted to receive communion in the Catholic Church by law (Code of Canon Law, Can. 915). This is not extended to the orthodox churches, who are permitted to receive communion in our mass, even if their own churches might not allow them to do so, (see Can. 844 above).

What's the TL;DR?

The orthodox churches are closer to us than any other christians. They are fully valid in that their sacraments are real and admitted by the Catholic Church, without ifs or ands or buts. They are neither heretics nor pretenders, but rather true christians in the same vein as us. In fact, proselytism towards the orthodox has been explicitly denounced. We pray that they may one day enter into full communion with Rome, bringing the richness of their traditions, as the eastern catholics have shown in their quiet but powerful example.

>"Every division among the baptized in Jesus Christ wounds that which the Church is and that for which the Church exists; in fact, such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages that most holy cause: the preaching of the Gospel to every creature." ~Pope Benedict 16

I know a lot of eastern catholics, like melkites and maronites, use arabic, so could anyone verify whether this is orthodox for us as well? I saw this originally from a muslim article, a sufi mantra apparently translated as "God is Love, Lover, and Beloved (lit: love God beloved God)." This is pretty much the same way St. Augustine described the Holy Trinity, where the Father is the Lover, the Son is the Beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the Love. Curious to see how someone more familiar with the language would interpret this.

Not a kenjutsu guy, olympic fencer instead, but love reading about various martial arts and history. I saw a video of Mizoguchi-ha Itto-ryu and found it to be very interesting. Personally, out of all the kenjutsu videos I've seen, Mizoguchi-ha is my favourite with Ono-ha being second. Something about the flow and deflection of Mizoguchi-ha is very satisfying to see.

That being said, I can't find any information online about Mizoguchi-ha other than a short section on Wikipedia, in contrast to the abundance on Ono-ha. Since it's still a school of Itto-ryu, I'm assuming that kiriotoshi is still a thing, but from the demos I've seen, I can't see any similarities to the other Itto-ryu schools. Could anyone share anything about Mizoguchi-ha Itto-ryu?

I have been quite fascinated by eastern prayers recently and was curious what all your favourite unique prayers were. Some that I have been fascinated about are the edessan Lakumara, the maronite You Have United, O Lord, and St. Nerses's I Confess with Faith.

Ignoring the common prayers shared with the Latin Church, like the Jesus Prayer and Trisagion, what are your favourite prayers, or any interesting prayers really, from all your respective rites?

I previously wrote a post that got quite popular, despite one of my points being controversial: https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/s/7Hr9t5Dp9J . Someone recently pointed out that I could give some more tips for even more beginner writers, especially for those infamous fanfic-level writers to quickly improve. So here it is:

1. Appropriate paragraph length. Your paragraph length is one of the biggest factor in making or breaking your flow. A paragraph should be a self-contained idea. Generally speaking, if the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the subject changes, it should be in a new paragraph. This is especially crucial in dialogues where every change in the speaker should be in a new paragraph. Sometimes it can be shorter, sometimes it can be longer, but try to get around 3-5 sentences per paragraph during action scenes or descriptions. Maybe it's because of the increasing number of phone readers, but paragraph length seems to be shrinking nowadays, for better or worse.
2. First person is much harder than it seems. Writing in first person forces you to act as the character, so you have to embody him/her really well. It is completely different from writing a diary where you just vomit your thoughts into writing, but rather think of it as the character telling the story. The narration should sound like the character's voice, while still following the basic conventions of writing.
3. Copy your favourite authors. Pick up your favourite book, choose a couple of paragraphs, and rewrite it with your own characters and settings while keeping the original sentence/paragraph structure, lexicon, and overall vibe. See what makes your favourite author's writing works.
4. Unless it's a character speaking, e.g. dialogue or first person narration, minimize the use of contractions. A lot of people will come to me with pitchforks here, but contractions generally make your writing sound too casual, and not in a good way. Compare these two lines: "For now he is finally home, but he stood there alone" and "For now he's finally home, but he stood there alone." It's subtle, but the former has more gravitas to it. Use contractions deliberately instead of as a crutch.
5. When using metaphors, make sure that there's a theme to it. For example if you compared a machine to a monster, stick with it and build on it. Make sure that it growls and chews and threatens. Don't just toss a metaphor out of nowhere and do nothing with it. This is not limited to metaphors but also to most figurative language like similes and personification.

Hope this helps!

I stumbled on a website some time ago with plenty information on all the churches, with history and etc. The problem is that I accidentally closed it and I don't keep search history on my device. I can't seem to find it anymore. Would anyone happen to know the website?

I know for sure that there was information on all the catholic churches, but I can't remember whether it included the other apostolic churches (EO, OO, COE) too or not. It was really well made with great UI, so not just an old "indie" website. I was reading the Maronite page last and it got into a great deal of its history, including the latinizations pre-Vatican 2 and the steps to recover their traditions now.

It's not much of a description that I could provide unfortunately. But if anyone could help me find the website, that would be greatly appreciated.

I honestly don't understand the difference between a major archbishop and a patriarch, other than the obvious title difference and precedence. Major archbishops, as the head of their sui iuris churches, seem to have no difference from patriarchs. I'm no canon lawyer, but I think even canon law basically just says that the rules are basically the same for both.

I understand that the patriarchs mostly stem from the Pentarchy, but it doesn't explain why the Armenian Catholic Church is a patriarchal church. Especially when the UGCC and Syro-Malabar Church make up about half the eastern catholic population, whereas the Coptic and the Syriac Catholic Churches are only 1% each. Why are they not raised to patriarchal churches?

For that matter, I don't quite understand the difference on those that are "just" metropolitan or exarchates too. Is it really just size? Shouldn't all the sui iuris churches be on the same level?