1. Mother or Sister? 2. Origin?

[ronyodish]

Hi,

This two-part question is directed at my various Eastern and Oriental Catholic brethren:

Part 1: For those of our particular Catholic Churches that have particular counterpart apostolic Churches, what do you consider that particular counterpart Church to be in relation to your particular Church?

In other words,

Greek/Byzantine Catholics: What do you consider the various Eastern Orthodox Churches to be in relation to you? Do you consider them as your Mothers or as your Sisters?

Oriental Catholics: What do you consider the various Oriental Orthodox Churches to be in relation to you? Do you consider them as your Mothers or as your Sisters?

Assyrian/Chaldean/Malabar Catholics: What do you consider the Assyrian Church of the East, and also the Ancient Church of the East, to be in relation to you? Do you consider them as your Mothers or as your Sisters?

For members here of those Catholic Churches (Maronite, Italo-Greek) that have no exact counterpart Churches, you may still give your opinion, however you want to do so.

**Part 2: ** Eastern and Oriental Catholics, when do you believe your particular Catholic Church first originated?

a. Did it originate with the Apostles?

b. Did it originate when they came back into full communion with Rome?

c. Some other answer (please elaborate).

Alright, here are my own answers to the questions as an Assyrian-Chaldean Catholic:

Part 1. I consider the Assyrian Church of the East, and also the Ancient Church of the East, to be my Sisters, not my Mothers. I consider both my Chaldean Catholic Church of the East and also the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church of the East, along with the Assyrian and Ancient Churches of the East, to be daughters of what was once known simply as the Church of the East. I consider that early centuries particular Church of the East to be my particular Mother, which was early on in full communion with the particular Churches in the West, that is, the Churches in the Roman Empire, including the primatial Church of Rome. My universal Mother was simply known as the Church, and early on, it became known as the Catholic Church, but my particular Mother was known as the Church of the East.

Part 2. My Assyrian-Chaldean Catholic Church of the East has her origins, or first originated, with the Apostles, when St. Thomas the Apostle, along with Sts. Addai, Aggai, and Mari, first evangelized the area of Mesopotamia, before St. Thomas eventually reached into India and even unto China! It was known back then, as I said, simply as the Church of the East, and her members were known as the Nasraye (Nazarenes, not to be confused with the Protestant denomination which goes by the same name), that is, the Aramaic-speaking followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

When we came back into full communion with Rome, one can say, I suppose, that this was a second origination (some might even say first origination), but from our perspective, we do not view ourselves as being originated at the time of re-entrance into full communion with Rome (At least, I don’t know of any Chaldean or Assyrian Catholic that speaks in this way). Rather, we are an Apostolic Church! We originate with the Apostles. Our Apostolic succession goes back to the first century. If we did not originate with the Apostles, and if we originated much later, then we would not be an Apostolic Church, and we’d be like the various Protestants. But since we are an Apostolic Church, and we do have Apostolic Succession, then we do originate with the Apostles.

Now, from our perspective, the Assyrian and the Ancient Churches of the East are likewise Apostolic Churches, and do originate from the same origination from which we originate, but the basic difference between us is this: They fell out of full communion with Rome and all other Churches, and remained so to this day, whereas, we fell out of full communion with Rome and all other Churches, but have since re-entered full communion. In this process, they lost something and we lost something. They lost universality, and became isolated and enclosed unto themselves, whereas, we lost some of our particular traditions due to various factors. The ecumenical process then is to rectify both of our situations, so that we may reunite with one another.

Ok, your turn

God bless,

Rony

 

[malphono]

Hi Rony

I more or less agree with your position, but actually I think the “family tree” is a bit more complicated, particularly for the Syriac Churches.

I have to look at the ancient Patriarchates as sisters. (Call Rome the “elder sister” in this discussion, but she is still a sister. Perhaps that should be “elder surviving sister” since Jerusalem was, of course, was the eldest, but she didn’t survive very long.) But, Jerusalem aside, let’s look at the rest:

Remember that, initially, Antioch was the patriarchate for all the Syriacs, but of course very early on the “East” (of course meaning the eastern side of the Roman-Persian Imperial boundary) became a Catholicosate technically subordinate to Antioch (at least in the beginning) but not so in fact. Looking at it that way, the “East” would, then, be a daughter of Antioch. For a variety of historical reasons (which you know as well – if not better – better than I) the daughter “grew up” and became a separate entity no longer subject to the Mother Church at Antioch. In turn, her daughter Church (Syro-Malabar) “grew up” and became a separate entity from the Mother Church in Assyria. (NB: This view also explains (ok, in a rather simple and unscientific way, but still … ) the common elements that exist between the Eastern and Western Syriac-speaking Churches.)

The story for the Maronites is somewhat similar: Antioch was the mother, but for a variety of historical reasons, (one of which is the broken Patriarchal succession in Antioch in the wake of Chalcedon), I have to consider the Maronites and Syriacs to be sisters. The Syro-Malankara Church is the daughter of the Syriac Church, who likewise “grew up” and became a separate entity.

Alexeandria is a lot less complicated: the Ancient Patriarchate is the Coptic Church. The Ethiopian Church is her daughter who, of course, “grew up” and again became a separate entity. (The newly-spawned Eritrean Church comes from modern political disputes, and I won’t consider that here.)

Constantinople looks more complicated, but perhaps it isn’t: in our “family tree” she’s the youngest of the sisters who apparently had the biggest family. I have to consider all of the various Byzantine Churches (including the Melkite/Antiocian, and, for that matter, the Italo-Greek) to be her daughters. For the sake of simplicity, (without getting into the complexities of intra-Byzantine relations, etc), I’ll say they, as well, “grew up” and became separate entities.

And of course Rome is the simplest of all: she had many daughters and although they did “grow up” she holds them close.

The Armenians are, in a way, the odd man out, since they derive from Antioch on one hand and Constantinople on the other, but still have a very unique character. I’m not sure of how to address them in our “family tree” except, perhaps, to say (and I don’t mean this to sound negative in any way) they are the “adopted daughter” of the two. (And throw a nurturing hand from Rome into that mix as well.) No matter, though, the Armenian Church is indeed a venerable and ancient Apostolic Church.

Now, the question of “particular counterpart” is, to me, a moot point: the Churches that came (or “returned” if you prefer) to union with Rome that have a “particular counterpart” are the same. At such time as the barriers to unity are erased, the two current parts of each will again become one. The two that do not have a “particular counterpart” will not be affected. (For the Maronites I’ll add a caveat: the current trend of Novus Ordo-inspired neo latinization is insidious and very unhealthy. So much so that it could ultimately result in a loss of identity. But I’ve gone into that in other threads, and won’t bore the world with it again here. )

I like the way you stated your position on “Part 2” of your query. Unless I’m misreading something, it seems to me to be rather similar to what I said above.

shlama ou shaina

 

[Diak]

As Malphono mentions It’s fairly straightforward for the Churches of the Constantinopolitan (“Byzantine”) tradition. Constantinople is our mother, Kyiv (the origin of the UGCC) is a daughter since missionaries from Constantinopolitan churches evangelized us, and Rome is our sister by virtue of the Union of Brest.

 

[jimmy]

Hey Rony, how are you doing? It has been a while since we have spoken.

Even though there is no exact counterpart to the Maronites, I consider the Syriac Orthodox to be our mother church to a certain degree since they have a very similar tradition and they do probably have the most legitimate claim to the Patriarchate of Antioch. Their liturgy is essentially the same. So I would read Syriac Orthodox saints writings if I came across them.

I would say that the Maronite Church was formed as a seperate church in either the 5th or the 7th century. Them and the Melkites were probably the same church for a long time I would guess. It seems that they were monothelite at one time so maybe the split between them and the Melkites happened in the 7th century with the Ekthesis of the emperor Heraclius. Maybe some of the bishops accepted the Ekthesis and some rejected it and a split occurred as a result. I would say that establishment of communion with Rome has nothing to do with our status as a Church. The Church of Antioch stretches back to the Apostles and its founding by Peter. Rome is consequently a sister Church since they both stretch back to the apostles.

 

[mardukm]

Yes. The Church of Eritrea is rather unique. She is comprised of both Latin Catholics and Eritrean Orthodox who came into communion with Rome.

I wonder if the abolition of the Latin exarchate in Eritrea means that the Latin Catholics there are expected to give up their Traditions, or will the Latins be permitted to keep their Traditions and governed by a patriarchal administrator (instead of a papal administrator)? Interesting situation. But completely off-topic, I know.

Blessings

 

[ronyodish]

Shlomo ou Shaino Malphono!

Thanks for the detailed response! I do, though, have a response to this particular paragraph:

Remember that, initially, Antioch was the patriarchate for all the Syriacs, but of course very early on the “East” (of course meaning the eastern side of the Roman-Persian Imperial boundary) became a Catholicosate technically subordinate to Antioch (at least in the beginning) but not so in fact. Looking at it that way, the “East” would, then, be a daughter of Antioch. For a variety of historical reasons (which you know as well – if not better – better than I) the daughter “grew up” and became a separate entity no longer subject to the Mother Church at Antioch. In turn, her daughter Church (Syro-Malabar) “grew up” and became a separate entity from the Mother Church in Assyria. (NB: This view also explains (ok, in a rather simple and unscientific way, but still … ) the common elements that exist between the Eastern and Western Syriac-speaking Churches.)

Member SyroMalankara wrote something similar in this post of another thread.

I just want to point out that the position of the Church of the East being initially under the Patriarchate of Antioch is the Antiochene position towards the Church of the East. It is not the position of the Church of the East towards herself. The Church of the East maintains that her Apostolic Succession does not derive from the Succession of Antioch. Just like the Church in Antioch grew out of the initial and mother Church in Jerusalem, the Church of the East grew out of the initial and mother Church in Jerusalem, bypassing Antioch.

Bishop Mar Bawai Soro, in his book: The Church of the East, writes the following on pages 14 and 15:

---

Since the Church of the East was closer to Antioch than to the other Metropolitan Sees, it came to be as if the church in Persia had no prerogative of its own, that it branched out from and was dependent upon Antioch. . . . Current inter-church relations, especially among the ancient apostolic churches, clearly illustrate that in the contemporary ecumenical state-of-affairs, there is an implied misconception about the Church of the East. Some authors and churches claim that Christianity in Mesopotamia was established during the sub-apostolic period as an offshoot missionary institution by the Church of Antioch.​

The bishop then puts a footnote which says:

---

Some sources have historically claimed that the Church of the East is an offshoot of the Patriarchate of Antioch: They base such an assertion on the Chronicle of Seert, which claims that between AD 252-256 (the eleventh year of the reign of Emperor Shapor Ardashir) the domain of the Roman Empire was invaded and Emperor Valerian, along with Demetrius the Bishop of Antioch and a large number of Christians, were brought to Babylonia, Susa, and Persis, but some were settled also in Gundishapor in Persia. The result of this captivity, such sources claim, was that Christianity had reached Mesopotamia and founded the church beyond the Euphrates. I disagree with such a hypothesis based on arguments that I shall provide later on in this study. For further details of such a position see, SCHER, Chronicle of Seert, especially 12-15.​

Here is, by the way, the list of Apostolic Succession from which the modern Churches of the East have derived, and when compared to the Succession of Antioch, there is a difference in the line of bishops from the beginning. The Church of the East has always been separate, but of course not seprated (at least, early on), from the Church of Antioch:

Church of the East (first 400 years):

33 Toma (Thomas)
33 Bar Tulmay (Bartholomew)
33 - 45 Addai (Thaddeus)
45 - 81 Agai, disciple of Addai (from the Seventy Disciples)
48 - 81 Mari, disciple of Addai (from the Seventy Disciples)
90 - 107 Abris, relative of the Virgin Mary
130 - 152 Oraham I
172 - 190 Yacob I, relative of Yosip the Carpenter
191 - 203 Ebid M’shikha
205 - 220 Akhu d’Awu
224 - 244 Shakhlupa of Kashkar
247 - 326 Papa Bar Gaggai
328 - 341 Shimun Bar Sabbai
345 - 347 Shahdost
350 - 358 Bar Bashmin
383 - 393 Tumarsa
393 - 399 Qaiyuma
399 - 411 Eskhaq

Church of Antioch (first 400 years):

37-67 St. Peter the Apostle
67-68 St. Evodius
68-107 St. Ignatios I Nurono (the Illuminator)
107-127 St. Heron
127-154 St. Korneilos
154-169 St. Heros
169-182 St. Theophilos
182-191 St. Maximos I
191-211 St. Seraphion
211-220 St. Ascelpiadis the Confessor
220-231 Philitus
231-237 Zbina
237-251 St. Babulas the Martyr
254-551 Fabius
254-260 S. Demetrianos
260-268 Paul I of Samosate
268-273 Domnus I
273-282 Timos
283-303 Cyrille I
304-314 Tyrannos
314-320 Vitalis
320-323 St. Philogone
323-324 Paulinos of Tyre
324-337 Ostatheous
360-381 Malatius
381-404 St. Flavin I

Hey Rony, how are you doing? It has been a while since we have spoken.

Hey Jimmy! I’m doing well. Yeah, it’s been a while, hope everything is well with you and your studies. Thanks for your post.

Diak and Marduk, thanks also for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

God bless

Rony

 

[malphono]

I just want to point out that the position of the Church of the East being initially under the Patriarchate of Antioch is the Antiochene position towards the Church of the East. It is not the position of the Church of the East towards herself. The Church of the East maintains that her Apostolic Succession does not derive from the Succession of Antioch. Just like the Church in Antioch grew out of the initial and mother Church in Jerusalem, the Church of the East grew out of the initial and mother Church in Jerusalem, bypassing Antioch.

Yes, I know of the position that Mar Bawai takes, but still the Chronicle of Seert exists, and it’s interesting that there is little else (at least not that survives) to counter it. And of course the deliniation of the Patriarchates confirmed by Nicea did not include the “East” although it is certainly a fact that the Church was there. Notice, too, that even Mar Bawai says “The Church of the East has always been separate, but of course not separated (at least, early on), from the Church of Antioch” which is more-or-less similar to what I was saying: whereas the “West” may have considered the “East” as technically subordinate to Antioch, the fact of the matter was that it was not.

But of course the argument from both sides may be little more than an exercise in semantics. The fact is that there are many common elements in the East and West Syriac traditions, which points to a common origin for, and parallel development of, both. Now, as to whether establishment of the Church in the “East” totally bypassed Antioch I can’t say: who knows? Maybe Mar Touma started his trek in Antioch and followed the Euphrates: remember that was the normal route (through Aleppo and Mousul), and it would have been safer than trudging northeast from Jerusalem through the desert.

shlama ou shaina

 

[ronyodish]

Yes, I know of the position that Mar Bawai takes, but still the Chronicle of Seert exists, and it’s interesting that there is little else (at least not that survives) to counter it. And of course the deliniation of the Patriarchates confirmed by Nicea did not include the “East” although it is certainly a fact that the Church was there. Notice, too, that even Mar Bawai says “The Church of the East has always been separate, but of course not separated (at least, early on), from the Church of Antioch” which is more-or-less similar to what I was saying: whereas the “West” may have considered the “East” as technically subordinate to Antioch, the fact of the matter was that it was not.

But of course the argument from both sides may be little more than an exercise in semantics. The fact is that there are many common elements in the East and West Syriac traditions, which points to a common origin for, and parallel development of, both. Now, as to whether establishment of the Church in the “East” totally bypassed Antioch I can’t say: who knows? Maybe Mar Touma started his trek in Antioch and followed the Euphrates: remember that was the normal route (through Aleppo and Mousul), and it would have been safer than trudging northeast from Jerusalem through the desert.

shlama ou shaina

Malphono,

Thanks for the reply. The quote “The Church of the East has always been separate, but of course not separated (at least, early on), from the Church of Antioch” was actually my quote, not that of the Bishop. I should have made it more clear. The Bishop’s words are only the ones between the dashes.

What I wanted to say in this quote is basically this: The Church of the East has always been separate or different from the Church of Antioch, but they were not separated from them, meaning, they were in ecclesial communion with Antioch, just like they were in ecclesial communion with the other Sees in the Roman Empire. The communion and communication may not have been particularly strong and firm in the early centuries due to distance and other factors, but nevertheless, there was a bond of peace and communion between the Sees. It was not until the 5th century that the Church of the East separated from Antioch and the rest of the Sees due to mostly political reasons.

The Council of Nicea did not include the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the See of the Church of the East in the Persian Empire, as among the Patriarchates, because the Council of Nicea was an Ecumenical Council for the Roman Empire. It was not until 410, at the Church of the East Synod of Mar Isaac, that conformity with Nicea was accomplished.

A book by Baum and Winkler, also called The Church of the East, explains further on pages 16 and 17:

Conformity with the beliefs of the Church of the Roman Empire was firmly established at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410, though the canons and the creed were not simply assumed. The canons were adjusted to meet the needs of the Church of the East, and the creed was altered on the basis of a local Persian creed . . . .

The book then states:

The letter from the Western fathers was signed by the bishop of Antioch and his suffragans, but he signed in the name of the Church of the Roman Empire. In their letter the Antiochene bishops made no claim of jurisdiction over the Persian church. There is no indication in the synodical acts of a historical dependence upon the patriarchate of Antioch. The Persian church made decisions autonomously following their own synodical procedures. It understood itself as an autonomous and autocephalous church standing in communion with the Church of the Roman Empire.

So, it would seem that the early Antiochenes did not view the Church of the East as part of their jurisdictional domain, and yet ever since the Christological problems of the 5th century, I suppose, the perspective of the Antiochenes has drifted towards this understanding of Antioch as encompassing all the East. For instance, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch is referred to as the “Patriarch of Antioch and All the East”. The Syriac Catholic Patriarch has a similar title, but at least his title adds a qualifier: “Patriarch of Antioch and All the East of the Syrians”, which is good, I suppose, since we Assyro-Chaldeans are not Syrians.

God bless!

Rony

 

[malphono]

So, it would seem that the early Antiochenes did not view the Church of the East as part of their jurisdictional domain, and yet ever since the Christological problems of the 5th century, I suppose, the perspective of the Antiochenes has drifted towards this understanding of Antioch as encompassing all the East. For instance, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch is referred to as the “Patriarch of Antioch and All the East”. The Syriac Catholic Patriarch has a similar title, but at least his title adds a qualifier: “Patriarch of Antioch and All the East of the Syrians”, which is good, I suppose, since we Assyro-Chaldeans are not Syrians.

Hi Rony

One thing about the Patriarchal titles (actually two things):

The Maronites use the same qualifier as do the Syriac Orthodox: ou d-kooloh madnho which I take to encompass the “East” as in "east of the east-west line within the Roman Empire, and not “east of the Roman-Persian Imperial boundary”. Never have I head it used to mean the latter (and trust me when I say I have a bit of experience in such matters . Oh, and I believe that the qualifier used by the Syriac CC is in deference to the Maronites.

Beyond that, yep, it sounds for all the world like a case of semantics. Apparently, we’re pretty much on the same page.

 

[ronyodish]

One thing about the Patriarchal titles (actually two things):

The Maronites use the same qualifier as do the Syriac Orthodox: ou d-kooloh madnho which I take to encompass the “East” as in "east of the east-west line within the Roman Empire, and not “east of the Roman-Persian Imperial boundary”. Never have I head it used to mean the latter (and trust me when I say I have a bit of experience in such matters . Oh, and I believe that the qualifier used by the Syriac CC is in deference to the Maronites.

Beyond that, yep, it sounds for all the world like a case of semantics. Apparently, we’re pretty much on the same page.

Alright then, sounds good

God bless,

Rony