Are there Nestorian Catholics?

[chaldobyzantine]

Nestorius was a heretic, and although the Assyrian Church of the East does not profess Nestorian Christology, he is for some reason still venerated and commemorated in that church. The anaphora ascribed to him, although we aren’t really sure if he wrote it, it doesn’t seem to have any heretical theology placed within it, so that may be why he is still venerated. However, if unity is to be emphasized, convincing the ACoE that Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius were heretical teachers whose theology isn’t even a part of their faith, is a major priority.
stbarnabastheapostle.net/lit3.html

In the Chaldean Catholic Church, we only use the Holy Qurbana of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, and only their anaphora. We don’t venerate Diodore, Theodore, or Nestorius just to be clear.

God Bless.

 

[Vico]

What happened was that a liturgical recension of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari was made in 1962 for the Syro-Malabar Church. It was of the ancient form so it did not contain the consecratory epiclesis and the narration of the Instutional Words. Members of the Syro-Malabar Church objected so permission was give to revise the text and the 1968 revision was made and accepted. Also in 1962 the other two anaphorae were included, namely that of Theodore and that of Nestorius. Attempts, today, are being made to restore them.

Ref: Jacob Nangelimalil,* The Relationship Between the Eucharistic Liturgy, the Interior Life and the Social WItness of the Church according to Joseph Cardinal Parecattil*, Rome, 1996, Gregorian University Press.

 

[ronyodish]

In the Chaldean Catholic Church, we only use the Holy Qurbana of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, and only their anaphora.

chaldobyzantine,

The above statement is incorrect. In addition to the anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, we do also use the other two anaphorae, though not as extensively as the main one. Also, for some reason, we liturgically call these two anaphorae as Raza Treyana (Second Mystery), and Raza Tleethaya (Third Mystery), perhaps, to hide the names of Mar Nestorius and Mar Theodorus from the the faithful, lest we “scandalize” them.

God bless,

Rony

 

[malphono]

…

Brikh Sapra, Rony! Good to see you back. It’s been a l-o-n-g time. Hope you’ll stay a while.

The above statement is incorrect. In addition to the anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, we do also use the other two anaphorae, though not as extensively as the main one. Also, for some reason, we liturgically call these two anaphorae as Raza Treyana (Second Mystery), and Raza Tleethaya (Third Mystery), perhaps, to hide the names of Mar Nestorius and Mar Theodorus from the the faithful, lest we “scandalize” them.

IIRC, the Treynaya and Thlethaya are used very sparingly, at most a few times a year for either. What I don’t recall is **when **they’re used. I believe that usage is similar to the ACoE (where the anaphorae indeed go by their original names, of course).

 

[Vico]

The Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari is used normally.

The Anaphora of Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia is used between Annunciation and the Sunday of Hosannas (the Sunday before Pascha), [Source Byzcath blog.]

The Anaphora of Mar Nestorius is used on Epiphany, the Friday of Mar John the Baptist, the Memorial of the Greek Doctors, the Wednesday of the Rogation of the Ninevites, and on Passover (Holy Thursday). [source below]

escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2399&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF

books.google.com/books?id=tzKRvEdtS1MC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=Anaphora+of+Mar+theodore+used+on&source=bl&ots=AG3qsNHSJB&sig=Gkcu1f1qGOLtzkdOmsv7WvF2lnw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eLNmUYbaIorY9QS3vIGoBQ&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Anaphora%20of%20Mar%20theodore%20used%20on&f=false

 

[ronyodish]

Brikh Sapra, Rony! Good to see you back. It’s been a l-o-n-g time. Hope you’ll stay a while.

malphono!

It’s good to see you as well my Maronite friend!

It has been a few years since I last posted, been very busy with life, and still am, but I all of a sudden felt like adding some posts again. I don’t think I’ll resume again as a regular poster, at least not yet, but I’ll probably post every once in a while, on things I find interesting.

IIRC, the Treynaya and Thlethaya are used very sparingly, at most a few times a year for either. What I don’t recall is when they’re used. I believe that usage is similar to the ACoE (where the anaphorae indeed go by their original names, of course).

Vico has posted the days of the liturgical cycle on which we celebrate these two anaphorae. Thank you Vico.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Aelred_Minor]

If the Roman Rite can have an Anglican Use, I don’t see why the Chaldeans can’t use something attributed to Nestorius if they want to. If they venerate him as a saint I’d see that as more difficult to justify.

 

[Denho]

If the Roman Rite can have an Anglican Use, I don’t see why the Chaldeans can’t use something attributed to Nestorius if they want to. If they venerate him as a saint I’d see that as more difficult to justify.

It is debatable whether or not Nestorius adhered to what has been known as “Nestorianism” even if the heresy was named after him. The same can be said of the Syriac Fathers who polemicists call “Monophysites.” They rejected explicitly the innovation of Eutyches. We should not be so quick to claim that these communities are heretics just because they adhere to the ancient expressions of their ecclesial traditions.

 

[ronyodish]

If the Roman Rite can have an Anglican Use, I don’t see why the Chaldeans can’t use something attributed to Nestorius if they want to. If they venerate him as a saint I’d see that as more difficult to justify.

Aelred Minor,

The Chaldean Church does not publicly and officially venerate Mar Nestorius as a Saint. Privately, some Assyrian-Chaldean Catholics do venerate him, on the premise that he was misunderstood, and in the hope that one day he will be rehabilitated amongst the Apostolic Churches.

As with the Fathers in general, and when referencing Bishops in general, the Aramaic title of “Mar” is given to him. This title means “sir” or “lord”. However, when referring to a Saint in the Chaldean Church, the term Qadisha (for a male) or Qadishta (for a female) is used in addition to their name. To my knowledge, no Chaldean Church refers to Mar Nestorius as a Qadisha.

God bless,

Rony

 

[malphono]

malphono!

It’s good to see you as well my Maronite friend!

It has been a few years since I last posted, been very busy with life, and still am, but I all of a sudden felt like adding some posts again. I don’t think I’ll resume again as a regular poster, at least not yet, but I’ll probably post every once in a while, on things I find interesting.

I know what you’re saying. Just look at my post count and you’ll see it hasn’t grown by any leaps or bounds since you moved to San Diego.

And BTW, if you ever get the urge to PM, please feel free.

Vico has posted the days of the liturgical cycle on which we celebrate these two anaphorae. Thank you Vico.

Ah, I wasn’t sure if the Chaldean custom was quite the same as the ACoE, but in that case, I’ll say thanks to Vico, too.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It is debatable whether or not Nestorius adhered to what has been known as “Nestorianism” even if the heresy was named after him. The same can be said of the Syriac Fathers who polemicists call “Monophysites.” They rejected explicitly the innovation of Eutyches. We should not be so quick to claim that these communities are heretics just because they adhere to the ancient expressions of their ecclesial traditions.

Agreed, at least as regards Nestorius. Nevertheless Nestorius certainly made serious errors. In any case I certainly think the veneration of him would be highly scandalous for the entire Church as well as for ecumenical relations between the Catholic Church and anyone but the Assyrian Church of the East (and perhaps some Protestants).

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Assyrian Christianity is part of the wider patchwork of Syriac Christianity, so while they’re not “Oriental” as we understand that term, they’re not exactly a separate entity, culturally/ethnolinguistically. The designation “Persian” has to do with the imperial division that saw most of the East Syrians (Assyrians/Nestorians/whatever you call them) fall within the borders of the Persian Empire, and the West Syrians (Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, “Melkites”) within the borders of the Byzantine Empire, but it was not such a strict division as we think of it today. Syriac Orthodox/West Syrians had plenty of dioceses within the Sassanid Empire, and I’m pretty sure the Nestorians also had their own within Byzantine territories by a certain point (they are mentioned, for instance, in some of the sayings of desert father Abba Phocas, who was based in Jerusalem; for a short description, see Wikipedia). There are Orthodox among the Persians. See, for instance, the desert father John the Persian.

Sure, I get that. I’m attempting to convey with some type of succinct terminology the difference between the two Oriental camps, one of which we associate (perhaps unjustly, I don’t know the details) with Nestorian teaching, and the other of which became passionately Miaphysite (Coptic, West Syriac, etc.), as represented by the teachings of St. Severus of Antioch, etc.

While the Nestorian heresy is not a specialty of mine, I do not think he denied the presence of Christ in the Eucharist (or at least he didn’t in his Bazaar of Heracleides, which is the most complete work of his that I have read). HIs heresy was Christological in another way, in his radical disjunction between the natures of Christ, maintaining, for instance, that it is improper to call St. Mary “Theotokos” because she is the mother of Jesus’ human nature, rather than bestowing to Him His divinity. (So as it was understood by his opponents, he effectively created two persons within the one Christ – Jesus the human born of Mary, and Christ the divine, to be considered separately…)

Oh, I know the basics of Nestorian heresy. I didn’t say he denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Rather, it follows logically from his distinction between Jesus and the eternal Word that the flesh of Jesus (if his teaching were true) is not the flesh of the eternal Word Himself, and that his flesh therefore is not supernaturally life-giving as it would necessarily be if we acknowledge Jesus - the real, historical Jesus - as the eternal Word of God Himself.

I don’t know if I have any access to Nestorius’ teachings in his own words at this time, but in support of my assertions let me quote St. Cyril of Alexandria’s eleventh anathema:

*11. Whosoever shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord giveth life and that it pertains to the Word of God the Father as his very own, but shall pretend that it belongs to another person who is united to him * only according to honour, and who has served as a dwelling for the divinity; and shall not rather confess, as we say, that that flesh giveth life because it is that of the Word who giveth life to all: let him be anathema.

Whatever Nestorius taught, at the very least it led St. Cyril to emphasize that “the flesh of the Lord gives life” and “pertains to the Word of God the Father as his very own.”

In light of the implications of Nestorian Christology as discussed above, I think St. Cyril’s reiteration of Eucharistic teaching is an important component of orthodox Christology.

If the Roman Rite can have an Anglican Use, I don’t see why the Chaldeans can’t use something attributed to Nestorius if they want to. If they venerate him as a saint I’d see that as more difficult to justify.

Exactly. The genetic fallacy shouldn’t be a part of anyone’s decision-making processes, even - or perhaps especially - in sacred and liturgical matters. But venerating him would be a different matter.**

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The Chaldean Church does not publicly and officially venerate Mar Nestorius as a Saint. Privately, some Assyrian-Chaldean Catholics do venerate him, on the premise that he was misunderstood, and in the hope that one day he will be rehabilitated amongst the Apostolic Churches.

As with the Fathers in general, and when referencing Bishops in general, the Aramaic title of “Mar” is given to him. This title means “sir” or “lord”. However, when referring to a Saint in the Chaldean Church, the term Qadisha (for a male) or Qadishta (for a female) is used in addition to their name. To my knowledge, no Chaldean Church refers to Mar Nestorius as a Qadisha.

Thank you for the information! That’s good to know.

It is debatable whether or not Nestorius adhered to what has been known as “Nestorianism” even if the heresy was named after him. The same can be said of the Syriac Fathers who polemicists call “Monophysites.” They rejected explicitly the innovation of Eutyches. We should not be so quick to claim that these communities are heretics just because they adhere to the ancient expressions of their ecclesial traditions.

I’m no expert on this matter - far from it - but from the little I do know, my suspicion is that Nestorius himself can probably be known with some reliability to have held the view attributed to him, even if he wouldn’t admit its ramifications.

However, I am far less confident - due to my ignorance - that east Syriac/Assyrian traditions of Christianity are or were reliably Nestorian.

So perhaps it is sort of like Eutyches: Eutyches was definitely wrong… way wrong. I guess the major difference is that I’m now beyond confident that the Oriental (west Syriac) tradition is not Eutychian, but orthodox… but I know so little about Assyrian/East Syriac Christianity.

So, as I said in my first reply, I will adopt trust as my default position. I would never think to assume by default that present-day Chaldean/East Syriac/Assyrian Christians believe heresy, both because I’m ignorant and because I believe charity demands otherwise.

 

[SyroMalankara]

In the long run, if Nestorius is rehabilitated, it would not be any different from the clashes between the Saints of the Syrian Church vs. the Coptic, or the Saints of the Byzantine vs. the Coptic/Syriac. Those who were venerated locally at one time, may later be accepted more widely. Venerate who you love, they are united in heaven.

 

[ronyodish]

However, I am far less confident - due to my ignorance - that east Syriac/Assyrian traditions of Christianity are or were reliably Nestorian.

Fone Bone 2001,

If by the term “Nestorian”, defined classically, as someone professing in two Sons, two Christs, and two Persons, then that someone is professing a heresy. The Chaldean/Assyrian/Syro-Malabar aka “East-Syriac” tradition rejects this heresy. The Church of the East, the great Church which flourished in the Persian Empire and further to the East, had never officially/dogmatically subscribed to this heresy.

The Church of the East official Christology can be summed up in the words of Mar Babai the Great, who composed in the 6th century the Teshbokhta (Hymn of Praise):

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 Qnome,
In one Person of one Sonship.
And as the Godhead is
three Qnome in one Essence,
Likewise the Sonship of the Son is
in two Natures, one Person.
So the Holy Church has learnt,
to confess the Son, who is Christ.

I Ieft the Aramaic term Qnome (pleural of Qnoma) above untranslated, because the term Qnoma is uniquely defined in the “East-Syriac” tradition. The Antiochene/West-Syriac tradition does not define it in the exact same way, nor is there a translation of this term that would be exactly equivalent to the terms used by all the other apostolic traditions. An approximate translation would be to use phrases like “individuated nature”, or “singular essence”, or “a particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized”, a concept not found in any of the other apostolic traditions.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Fone Bone 2001,

If by the term “Nestorian”, defined classically, as someone professing in two Sons, two Christs, and two Persons, then that someone is professing a heresy. The Chaldean/Assyrian/Syro-Malabar aka “East-Syriac” tradition rejects this heresy. The Church of the East, the great Church which flourished in the Persian Empire and further to the East, had never officially/dogmatically subscribed to this heresy.

The Church of the East official Christology can be summed up in the words of Mar Babai the Great, who composed in the 6th century the Teshbokhta (Hymn of Praise):

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 Qnome,
In one Person of one Sonship.
And as the Godhead is
three Qnome in one Essence,
Likewise the Sonship of the Son is
in two Natures, one Person.
So the Holy Church has learnt,
to confess the Son, who is Christ.

I Ieft the Aramaic term Qnome (pleural of Qnoma) above untranslated, because the term Qnoma is uniquely defined in the “East-Syriac” tradition. The Antiochene/West-Syriac tradition does not define it in the exact same way, nor is there a translation of this term that would be exactly equivalent to the terms used by all the other apostolic traditions. An approximate translation would be to use phrases like “individuated nature”, or “singular essence”, or “a particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized”, a concept not found in any of the other apostolic traditions.

God bless,

Rony

I’ve always presumed precisely what you assert here - both out of charity/by default, and because it’s been my honest impression.

It’s good to hear from a real live Chaldean Catholic, however, what I’ve always suspected and hoped for.

 

[TomKocherry]

This is an interesting question. What is a Nestorian Church? What is Nestorianism? Was Nestorius nestorian? These are very intersting questions which may offer eye opening answers resulting from the Common Christological Declaration signed by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV of the Assyrian Church of the East on 11th November, 1994, which was followed by the “Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East” promulgated by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. For those who are interested in knowing some facts of the underlying historical issues, I strongly recommend them to read “The Church of the East” written by Archbishop Mar Bawai Soro.

Another point. The 23 individual Churches in the Catholic communion are all “Catholic” NOT all “Roman Catholic”. Roman Catholic Church or the Latin Church or the Western Church is one of the Catholic Churches. All these Catholic Churches are in “Communion in Faith” with one another and with the Bishop of Rome, who is recognized as the successor of the Rock (Peter), who also is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Each of the other 22 Eastern or Oriental Churches has its own “Head”; a Patriarch, a Catholicos or Major Archbishop etc.

Mar Walah! (Jn 20:28)

Tom

 

[Aelred_Minor]

This is an interesting question. What is a Nestorian Church? What is Nestorianism? Was Nestorius nestorian? These are very intersting questions which may offer eye opening answers resulting from the Common Christological Declaration signed by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV of the Assyrian Church of the East on 11th November, 1994, which was followed by the “Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East” promulgated by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. For those who are interested in knowing some facts of the underlying historical issues, I strongly recommend them to read “The Church of the East” written by Archbishop Mar Bawai Soro.

Another point. The 23 individual Churches in the Catholic communion are all “Catholic” NOT all “Roman Catholic”. Roman Catholic Church or the Latin Church or the Western Church is one of the Catholic Churches. All these Catholic Churches are in “Communion in Faith” with one another and with the Bishop of Rome, who is recognized as the successor of the Rock (Peter), who also is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Each of the other 22 Eastern or Oriental Churches has its own “Head”; a Patriarch, a Catholicos or Major Archbishop etc.

Mar Walah! (Jn 20:28)

Tom

I’m glad you brought up the ecumenical declaration of 1994. I hope and pray that there may be renewed dialogue and a renewed prospect of full unity in the near future.

Regarding the term “Roman Catholic”, there have been innumerable debates on the subject on these forums. I don’t mean to start another, but I do wish to point out that the term can validly be used in two very different ways, either to refer to all Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome or to refer to the Latin Church exclusively. We may lament the fact that both meanings of the term are in simultaneous use both inside and outside the Church and the confusion this brings about, but denying one meaning of the term entirely only separates one from reality and increases the confusion in the Church about the subject.

 

[amalthomas]

en.bookfi.org/book/1165660

 

[TomKocherry]

Ref: Regarding the term “Roman Catholic”, there have been innumerable debates on the subject on these forums. I don’t mean to start another, but I do wish to point out that the term can validly be used in two very different ways, either to refer to all Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome or to refer to the Latin Church exclusively. We may lament the fact that both meanings of the term are in simultaneous use both inside and outside the Church and the confusion this brings about, but denying one meaning of the term entirely only separates one from reality and increases the confusion in the Church about the subject.

THE EASTERN CATHOLICS DO NOT FIND THEMSELVES COMPLIMENTED TO BE CALLED “ROMAN CATHOLICS” (a left handed compliment!!)