B
Blind_Didymus
Guest
Peace mates,
How is Latinisation (or lack thereof) an obstacle to unity? If two brothers go their separate ways and one becomes closer to his cousin as a result and ends up more like him, for what purpose, when they are trying to come together in harmony again, should the other brother chide with him for being more like their cousin than him? This would be utterly pointless and only serve to show the jealousy of that brother against his cousin.
Rather, all Churches should be permitted to retain whatever traditions they have received without prejudice. If one has adopted certain Latin practices and come to love them, why should these be taken from them? If one has no foreign customs, why should they be added if they seem strange to the flock and hard to embrace?
In regards to other matters, iconography is used by the Church of the East in India. If one wishes to argue that the Assyrians don’t have icons, well, even the image of the cross is a simple icon and all of their Churches at least have this. Some also have images in the windows which may be deemed icons. Simply because one Church’s icons do not take the same form as those of other Churches is no reason to condemn them. That said, it is true that few icons exist in the Assyrian tradition and they do not generally have pictures of people in Churches due to the heavy persecutions which have come upon them because of this.
As christological issues have already been sorted out, there is no reason why the Assyrian Church of the East needs to accept the Council of Ephesus. It can accept that it gave one form of legitimate teaching without having to accept the Council itself which the ACOE views as having been improperly conducted. (Much in the same way that the Copt’s agreements with both the EOs and Rome show that the Copts can accept the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon as being one form of legitimate expression while not accepting this Council which they likewise view to have been improperly conducted.)
There is no need for the ACOE to incorporate the term “theotokos” into their tradition when it is foreign to them and potentially misleading in their historical theological language. Is it not sufficient that their catechism states that they can accept the use of the term by other Christians as proper?
Just as there is a Coptic Catholic Patriarch and there are other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, there should be no reason why any Eastern Christian Patriarch from an authentic tradition (i.e. a Christian one not a heretical/schismatic group) should not be able to enter communion with Rome while remaining a Patriarch of his own flock which follows him.
Regarding the recognition of saints, many saints are only locally recognised. The ACOE did well a few years back to recognise that it is only the removing of condemnations against the saints of other Churches which is needed for Churches to unite. Churches do not need to recognise the saints of other Churches which are foreign to their own tradition.
How is Latinisation (or lack thereof) an obstacle to unity? If two brothers go their separate ways and one becomes closer to his cousin as a result and ends up more like him, for what purpose, when they are trying to come together in harmony again, should the other brother chide with him for being more like their cousin than him? This would be utterly pointless and only serve to show the jealousy of that brother against his cousin.
Rather, all Churches should be permitted to retain whatever traditions they have received without prejudice. If one has adopted certain Latin practices and come to love them, why should these be taken from them? If one has no foreign customs, why should they be added if they seem strange to the flock and hard to embrace?
In regards to other matters, iconography is used by the Church of the East in India. If one wishes to argue that the Assyrians don’t have icons, well, even the image of the cross is a simple icon and all of their Churches at least have this. Some also have images in the windows which may be deemed icons. Simply because one Church’s icons do not take the same form as those of other Churches is no reason to condemn them. That said, it is true that few icons exist in the Assyrian tradition and they do not generally have pictures of people in Churches due to the heavy persecutions which have come upon them because of this.
As christological issues have already been sorted out, there is no reason why the Assyrian Church of the East needs to accept the Council of Ephesus. It can accept that it gave one form of legitimate teaching without having to accept the Council itself which the ACOE views as having been improperly conducted. (Much in the same way that the Copt’s agreements with both the EOs and Rome show that the Copts can accept the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon as being one form of legitimate expression while not accepting this Council which they likewise view to have been improperly conducted.)
There is no need for the ACOE to incorporate the term “theotokos” into their tradition when it is foreign to them and potentially misleading in their historical theological language. Is it not sufficient that their catechism states that they can accept the use of the term by other Christians as proper?
Just as there is a Coptic Catholic Patriarch and there are other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, there should be no reason why any Eastern Christian Patriarch from an authentic tradition (i.e. a Christian one not a heretical/schismatic group) should not be able to enter communion with Rome while remaining a Patriarch of his own flock which follows him.
Regarding the recognition of saints, many saints are only locally recognised. The ACOE did well a few years back to recognise that it is only the removing of condemnations against the saints of other Churches which is needed for Churches to unite. Churches do not need to recognise the saints of other Churches which are foreign to their own tradition.
