Assyrians Elect To Enter Into Full Communion W/ Catholic Church

[SiempreFiel]

No. it doesn’t, actually.

You are reading back into history your modern understanding of what primacy means. That is revisionism.

To modern Roman Catholics, there is only one primate and he is the boss. The history of your own church speaks against you, for the bishop of Rome had little authority outside of his own metropolitan area, meaning central Italy, until long after the ACofE found itself out of communion with him.

Even in large areas of the west, Spain and Gaul for example, the opinion of the bishop of Rome was ignored on important matters routinely. The local synods acted on their own.

This did not begin to change significantly until around the eight century. The ACofE was long gone, so they have no history of the bishop of Rome as a boss. Therefore, by the flaws of you own logic, you are misrepresenting the role of the bishop of Rome to assyrian73.

Michael

It seems like the ACofE did have some history of the bishop of Rome as a boss. If not, then how do you explain the quote below?

"The official organ of our Church of the East, Mar Abdisho of Soba, the last theologian in our Church before its fall, based himself on such an understanding when he collected his famous Nomocanon in which he clearly states the following: “To the Great Rome [authority] was given because the two pillars are laid [in the grave] there, Peter, I say, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and the head of the patriarchs.” (Memra 9; Risha 1) Furthermore, Abdisho asserts “. . . . And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema.” (Memra 9; Risha 8).

 

[Hesychios]

It seems like the ACofE did have some history of the bishop of Rome as a boss. If not, then how do you explain the quote below?

"The official organ of our Church of the East, Mar Abdisho of Soba, the last theologian in our Church before its fall, based himself on such an understanding when he collected his famous Nomocanon in which he clearly states the following: “To the Great Rome [authority] was given because the two pillars are laid [in the grave] there, Peter, I say, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and the head of the patriarchs.” (Memra 9; Risha 1) Furthermore, Abdisho asserts “. . . . And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema.” (Memra 9; Risha 8).

I believe this was posted here before. I don’t know the date of this quote, or who exactly the author is, but did he himself become a Catholic? If he did not that would imply he did not understand primacy in the same way you do. In fact, if he really believed that the Roman Catholic church is the True church he was bound by conscience to convert, or risk damnation, according to your own church’s theology. He can not hide behind the excuse of invincible ignorance. So, did he convert?

The opinion expressed here does not demonstrate universal jurisdiction for the Pope as claimed by the Roman Catholic church.

There is nothing in church history I can find that demonstrated anything like that. If you find any evidence of the Popes naming bishops for that ancient and venerable church, reassigning it’s bishops from one See to another, or calling it’s councils, codifying it’s canons, establishing the norms for it’s liturgy, erecting and suppressing it’s dioceses, summoning it’s bishops to Ad Limina visits etc. please post them.

Michael

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by SiempreFiel:

"The official organ of our Church of the East, Mar Abdisho of Soba, the last theologian in our Church before its fall, based himself on such an understanding when he collected his famous Nomocanon in which he clearly states the following: “To the Great Rome [authority] was given because the two pillars are laid [in the grave] there, Peter, I say, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and the head of the patriarchs.” (Memra 9; Risha 1) Furthermore, Abdisho asserts “. . . . And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema.” (Memra 9; Risha 8).

The source for your quote: zindamagazine.com/html/archives/2005/11.19.05/index_sat.php

 

[Madaglan]

Mar Abdisho of Soba lived during the mid-13th to the early 14th century.

betnahrain.org/bbs/index.pl/noframes/read/4500

 

[SiempreFiel]

Dear all,

Peace,

Thank you for the letters of support and for your prayers. It is good to be greeted by brothers and sisters in Christ. Thank you.

ASimpleSinner, I will look for a prayer when I have a chance to look through some of our liturgy books.

I just wanted to add in the meantime, in response to jj2011’s comments. The case for the Church of the East has an especially fine case in that we have the nomocanons of our saint, Mar Abdisho.

Quoting an open letter by our bishop:

The official organ of our Church of the East, Mar Abdisho of Soba, the last theologian in our Church before its fall, based himself on such an understanding when he collected his famous Nomocanon in which he clearly states the following: “To the Great Rome [authority] was given because the two pillars are laid [in the grave] there, Peter, I say, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and the head of the patriarchs.” (Memra 9; Risha 1) Furthermore, Abdisho asserts “. . . . And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema.” (Memra 9; Risha 8).

Pace e bene,
Anthony

The source for your quote: zindamagazine.com/html/archives/2005/11.19.05/index_sat.php

I got the quote from brother antgaria!

 

[jj2011]

I believe this was posted here before. I don’t know the date of this quote, or who exactly the author is, but did he himself become a Catholic? If he did not that would imply he did not understand primacy in the same way you do. In fact, if he really believed that the Roman Catholic church is the True church he was bound by conscience to convert, or risk damnation, according to your own church’s theology. He can not hide behind the excuse of invincible ignorance. So, did he convert?

The opinion expressed here does not demonstrate universal jurisdiction for the Pope as claimed by the Roman Catholic church.

There is nothing in church history I can find that demonstrated anything like that. If you find any evidence of the Popes naming bishops for that ancient and venerable church, reassigning it’s bishops from one See to another, or calling it’s councils, codifying it’s canons, establishing the norms for it’s liturgy, erecting and suppressing it’s dioceses, summoning it’s bishops to Ad Limina visits etc. please post them.

Michael

Actually the canons about papal primacy are attributed to St. Maruthas of Maiperqat (circa 400) in the Syriac MS tradition. They are found in numerous Syriac canonists-- Bar Hebraeus, Abdisho of Sobi, Ibn al-Taiyib and others.

This phenomenon may help explain why so many of the Assyrians accepted reunion with Rome in the form of the Chaldean Catholic patriarchate, which has numerical parity with the Assyrians.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Actually the canons about papal primacy are attributed to St. Maruthas of Maiperqat (circa 400) in the Syriac MS tradition. They are found in numerous Syriac canonists-- Bar Hebraeus, Abdisho of Sobi, Ibn al-Taiyib and others.

This phenomenon may help explain why so many of the Assyrians accepted reunion with Rome in the form of the Chaldean Catholic patriarchate, which has numerical parity with the Assyrians.

Thanks for the additional meaningful information!

Glory to God in the highest!!!

 

[jj2011]

You’re welcome. I’d like to reiterate that the acceptance of these canons actually crosses denominational lines, as they are found in the work of Bar Hebraeus, [West Syrian], and in the Assyrian [East Syrian] authors cited.

I’ll give once more a link to a study by Arthur Voobus, which is completely non-polemical and historical, and doesn’t get into what text proves what theology.

melvyl.cdlib.org/F/6C8R46ITUNAJFS5YELKSFX9YABM1GDRUJGPH8F5QBNKFU71VUL-01798?func=full-set-set&set_number=035368&set_entry=000005&format=999

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

There is nothing in church history I can find that demonstrated anything like that. If you find any evidence of the Popes naming bishops for that ancient and venerable church, reassigning it’s bishops from one See to another, or calling it’s councils, codifying it’s canons, establishing the norms for it’s liturgy, erecting and suppressing it’s dioceses, summoning it’s bishops to Ad Limina visits etc. please post them.

That’s a typical polemic rejoinder, a fallacious argument from silence. It demonstrates no understanding of the papal prerogatives (your former life as a Catholic is no guarantee that you did understand it either). I do not say that with any animosity.

In fact, the Pope has never claimed that he can name bishops in other patriarchal jurisidictions outside his own, and unless you can show us a canon that says so your statement has no merit.

The Pope has never claimed that he can reassign bishops from one See to another outside his patriarchal jurisdiction, and unless you can show us proof, your statement has no merit.

The Pope has never claimed to be the only one who can call all councils (local and ecumenical), though the calling of an ECUMENICAL council must at least have implicit papal approval.
Unless you can show us proof for your statement, it has no merit.

The Pope nor the canons of the Catholic Church have never claimed for the papacy any of the exaggerations you have proffered.

Ad limina visits - what’s the problem with that? It is good administrative practicality that permits the Pope to know the state of the Church at large and permits a census of the whole Catholic Church (as well give a chance for hierarchs to venerate the tombs of Sts. Peter and Paul - who would not want to?). It is, practically speaking, analogous to the requirement for synodal congregation at set times in the local Churches.

Are you saying your own Patriarch does not care to know about the state of his Patriarchateoutside of his ordinary See? Why would it be strange to you that our Pope shows such care for the Churches to want to know about them?

Once again, I invite you to show everyone here an official Catholic source for all the exaggerated claims you have made.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jj2011,

Actually the canons about papal primacy are attributed to St. Maruthas of Maiperqat (circa 400) in the Syriac MS tradition. They are found in numerous Syriac canonists-- Bar Hebraeus, Abdisho of Sobi, Ibn al-Taiyib and others.

Thank you so much for the information! I guess it IS generally a Syrian Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mardukm:

That’s a typical polemic rejoinder, a fallacious argument from silence. It demonstrates no understanding of the papal prerogatives (your former life as a Catholic is no guarantee that you did understand it either). I do not say that with any animosity.

Yet, this is the same kind of argument that Catholics and Orthodox use against Protestants: no Church Father, no ecclesiastic, no person of our knowledge has ever spoken of the doctrines you now speak of (sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.). Are Catholics and Orthodox wrong in using this as part of their argument?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mardukm:

In fact, the Pope has never claimed that he can name bishops in other patriarchal jurisidictions outside his own, and unless you can show us a canon that says so your statement has no merit.

The Pope has never claimed that he can reassign bishops from one See to another outside his patriarchal jurisdiction, and unless you can show us proof, your statement has no merit.

The Pope has never claimed to be the only one who can call all councils (local and ecumenical), though the calling of an ECUMENICAL council must at least have implicit papal approval.
Unless you can show us proof for your statement, it has no merit.

The Pope nor the canons of the Catholic Church have never claimed for the papacy any of the exaggerations you have proffered.

According to LG 22, it is the “prerogative” of the Pope to convoke an ecumenical council.

Also, the most recent of the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches stresses that it is the Pope alone who can convoke an ecumenical council: intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P1F.HTM

Now, the difference between call and convoke…

 

[Woodstock]

Yet, this is the same kind of argument that Catholics and Orthodox use against Protestants: no Church Father, no ecclesiastic, no person of our knowledge has ever spoken of the doctrines you now speak of (sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.). Are Catholics and Orthodox wrong in using this as part of their argument?

You think there is no documentation of teachings on the role of faith or scripture in our salvation? And in the supposed absence of this teaching, you think the Orthodox are correct to make accusations against the papacy they have no documentation to prove? So the Assyrians shouldn’t follow their own teachings because Protestants believe in sola fide and sola scriptura?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Woodstock:

You think there is no documentation of teachings on the role of faith or scripture in our salvation? And in the supposed absence of this teaching, you think the Orthodox are correct to make accusations against the papacy they have no documentation to prove? So the Assyrians shouldn’t follow their own teachings because Protestants believe in sola fide and sola scriptura?

Protestants, when you talk with many of them, will tell you that the sola’s have always been believed. When you ask them, show me the Church Fathers who wrote about justification by faith alone, they can’t do it. They usually give some excuse for why this or that Church Father did not write more strongly about justification by faith alone. Justification by faith alone was around…Christians believed in it, but the heresy of Roman Catholicism had not yet completely distorted the doctrine.

When you ask a Roman Catholic where you see full, supreme, universal jurisdiction of the Pope in the first several centuries of the Church, the Roman Catholic usually admits, well you have to understand the doctrines on the Pope are a legitimate development.

The Protestant looks to St. Augustine and says, “look, a man who by his conversion teaches justification by grace alone!” Sure, no justification by faith alone is mentioned, but that’s besides the point. Justification by faith alone is a logical corollary of justification by grace alone. The Roman Catholic looks to early Church Fathers’ statements on Peter and the Bishop of Rome, and say, “see, here is the foundation of our beliefs concerning the Pope.” Yet, there is no mention in the early canons of the Church of the Pope having the full, universal and supreme jurisdiction he now claims. But again, the logical corollary: if the Pope is the successor of Peter, who was chief of the Apostles; if he is head of the first church, then he must also have authority over all the other churches and their heads. It makes complete logical sense, even if the early Church Fathers didn’t place as much stress on this as they could have. When commenting on Matthew 16, the Church Fathers usually don’t make reference to the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. I know I know. Their immediate concern was some spiritual truth. They were not rejecting the truth concerning the Peter and the Pope of Rome, but just not directly addressing it. Still, there is hardly a Matthew 16:13-19 homily today (in the RCC) that fails to observe what is now considered a transpicuous Scriptural truth.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Protestants, when you talk with many of them, will tell you that the sola’s have always been believed. When you ask them, show me the Church Fathers who wrote about justification by faith alone, they can’t do it.

You are absolutely wrong.

Protestants use Pope St. Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians as evidence for Sola Fide.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by SiempreFiel:

You are absolutely wrong.

Protestants use Pope St. Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians as evidence for Sola Fide.

In the sense of am writing, I am not wrong. Perhaps I should have been clearer on this. Let me explain:
St. Clement does not specifically write about justification “by faith alone.” He writes about being justified by faith and not by our own works. This indeed is found amongst the writings of the Church Fathers.

What I’m pointing out, however, is that Protestants are hard-pressed to show me Patristic witness to justification “by faith alone” (sola fide) (wording is important), which is central to Protestant belief. I remember seeing one quote (might have been Chrysostom) which actually uses the phrase “faith alone.” Protestants do, however, attempt to see in these Patristic quotes justification by faith alone, even though the doctrine and the classic pairing of “faith alone” is not specifically mentioned.

I should add that the quotes Protestants select from the Church Fathers which they believe support sola fide are few and far between considering the great wealth of Patristic literature. Protestants typically minimize works by the Early Fathers which speak concerning monastic life and the heavenly rewards associated with it.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Dear brother jj2011,

Thank you so much for the information! I guess it IS generally a Syrian Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

From all the evidence that has been presented here, it seems pretty obvious to me that the Syrian Tradition is remarkably similar to the “Roman” Tradition in respect to the Petrine ministry!

What’s more impressing is that this Syrian Tradition regarding the Petrine ministry is evident from at least the fourth century, all the way to the mid-13th to early -14th century.

Two examples:

St. Ephraem the Syrian, writing in the 4th century, said this:

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Mar Abdisho of Soba, writing in the mid-13th to early-14th century, affirmed the following:

“To the Great Rome [authority] was given because the two pillars are laid [in the grave] there, Peter, I say, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and the head of the patriarchs.” (Memra 9; Risha 1) Furthermore, Abdisho asserts “. . . . And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema.” (Memra 9; Risha 8).

Clearly, there seems to be a consensus here.

 

[mardukm]

According to LG 22, it is the “prerogative” of the Pope to convoke an ecumenical council.

Also, the most recent of the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches stresses that it is the Pope alone who can convoke an ecumenical council: intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P1F.HTM

Now, the difference between call and convoke…

Dear brother Madaglan, I believe brother Hesychios’ claim was that the Pope has the authority (or claimed the authority) to be able to call a local council - that is simply not true. Our canons do not make such a claim; in fact our canons state that the convocation of a local council is the prerogative of the local Metropolitan or Patriarch - as has ALWAYS been the case since East, West and Orient were united in the first millenium.

I’m the one who added consideration for an ecumenical council because I wanted to openly admit that there is a type of council that the Pope indeed claims to have authority - even sole authority - to convoke, or at least have his implict approval for its convocation. That is the ecumenical council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by SiempreFiel:

From all the evidence that has been presented here, it seems pretty obvious to me that the Syrian Tradition is remarkably similar to the “Roman” Tradition in respect to the Petrine ministry!

What’s more impressing is that this Syrian Tradition regarding the Petrine ministry is evident from at least the fourth century, all the way to the mid-13th to early -14th century.

St. Ephraem does not mention the Bishop of Rome in the quote. The bishops of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome are all on the see of Peter.

Clearly, there seems to be a consensus here.

A consensus of two people!

Let’s see what each is saying:

By St. Ephraem the Syrian we are to understand that Peter is given magnificent gifts and an authority over all treasure. There is no mention of Rome or her bishop, or the relationship of Peter to the other Apostles (does he have authority over them? remains to be addressed).

Abdisho of Soba is not directly writing (at least directly) about the graces given Peter; he is writing about the authority of Rome over the other patriarchs. In his comparison, he assumes that Peter does have authority over the other Apostles, which is the basis for the bishop of Rome having authority over the other bishops in the Church.

The two agree that there is a Petrine Primacy (indeed a lofty one), but as Ephraem does not define this primacy in relation to the other Apostles, we cannot go much further than this.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Yet, this is the same kind of argument that Catholics and Orthodox use against Protestants: no Church Father, no ecclesiastic, no person of our knowledge has ever spoken of the doctrines you now speak of (sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.). Are Catholics and Orthodox wrong in using this as part of their argument?

I think you’re trying to compare apples and oranges. What polemicists often do (what Michael did - surprisingly, mind you, for he is normally one of the least polemic EO Christians I have come across) is make a certain claim for another Church without any evidence.

Brother Michael claimed certain prerogatives for the papacy it has never claimed, and then shot it down by saying there is no evidence for them.

It is actually the straw man fallacy, but the form in which he presented it made it appear to be an argument from silence (i.e., I see no evidence that…).

Blessings,
Marduk