S
sambos671
Guest
If there are I have a few questions about what you believe. I’m trying to round out some Christian history.
Do they still follow Nestorius teaching? And if they do how does that look?I am not, but 80% of the parish I go to are.
Everything Ive seen still is Christotokos.How do they differ then from the Latin rite? Do they use the term Theotokos now?
Thats Nestorius. it was his opossition to Theotokos. The Assyria church is now in communion with Rome?Everything Ive seen still is Christotokos.
The ACE are in limited communion with the Chaldean Patriarch, and through him with Rome.Thats Nestorius. it was his opossition to Theotokos. The Assyria church is now in communion with Rome?
No. I don’t think they ever have.Do they still follow Nestorius teaching? And if they do how does that look?
Yes! Sounds like you’re talking about the Balamand Union. A similar union took place with the Eastern Orthodox Church that was called the Chambesy Union. Personally, I am far more interested in resolving the issues between the so-called Monophysite’s and the Eastern Orthodox Churches than I am in resolving the issues between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. I believe it is far easier to conclude that at least some of the so-called Monophysites are not Monophysites at all but in fact hold the same exact Orthodox faith that the Eastern Orthodox Church does, then it is to conclude that the addition of the filioque in the Latin creed does not change the faith between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox.Sometime in the 90’s the Assyrian Church of the East Patriarch, His Holiness Mar Dinkha, and His Holiness Pope John Paul II signed a joint declaration of common Christology.
This statement was approved by the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church.
So the Assyrians are NOT Nestorians now, if they ever were.
In the Chaldean Catholic Church (the counterpart), the Liturgies of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia are called the Second and Third Hallowings. Of course, they officially repudiated Nestorianism at the time of union.
Yes. I might also add that maybe 25% here are Roman Catholics (here in my parish) that attend the parish to fellowship with others that are here from the middle east. Of course only those who are Orthodox commune at the Cup. The service is done about 65% in Arabic and 35% in English. Might I also say that this is the most friendliest parish that I have ever belonged to! The root of ecumenism here is not in heresy, but rather in a very strong desire not to judge others.**I’ve gathered that the lines between the various Churches in the Middle East are by no means as carefully drawn as they are once they come here.
In fact, the borders seem to be rather porous.**
In regards to our ecumenism in the middle east, one has to keep in mind the situation in which our people have fallen over centuries of oppression. Our identity is intimately related to our Christianity, something that has endangered us but also made us not too aware of our Ecclesiastic laws, etc. Our family has Assyrian CotE, Catholic, and even Presbyterian history.The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of Christ our God and Savior”. 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”.
Neither do I, nor did His Holiness John Paul II. Hence, the common Christology declaration.Do they use the term Theotokos now?
Everything Ive seen still is Christotokos
On the www.cired.org site (which presently is not working, Pope John Paul II and Mar Dinkha said in their joint statement that they recognize that Theotokos and Christotokos (in the sense of “Mother of Christ our God”) express the same truth.
A Nestorian writer in the 8th century or so said this:
One is Christ the Son of God,
Worshiped by all in two natures;
In His Godhead begotten of the Father,
Without beginning before all time;
In His humanity born of Mary,
In the fullness of time, in a body united;
Neither His Godhead is of the nature of the mother,
Nor His humanity of the nature of the Father;
The natures are preserved in their Qnumas*,
In one person of one Sonship.
And as the Godhead is three substances in one nature,
Likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one person.
So the Holy Church has taught.
Frankly, I don’t see the difference between this and the defintion of Chalcedon.