Assyrians Elect To Enter Into Full Communion W/ Catholic Church

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mardukm:

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

The Pope can call a local council within his own particular church (Roman Church). But as to the calling of local councils in other jurisdictions, I don’t know.

I suppose I misread what you wrote and thought you were saying that the Pope nowhere says that he alone has the prerogative to call an Ecumenical Council or a local council, when in reality you were saying that the Pope nowhere has said he alone has perogative to call all councils.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

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.

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.

The consensus appears in both the idea that St. Peter had primatial authority among the Apostles and the idea that the Primatial authority of St, Peter has been handed down in the Apostolic Succession to his immediate successors,

This is very distinct and different from 1) the amorphous Petrine succession granted to ALL bishops or 2) the utter denial of Petrine primatial authority that is proposed by other apostolic Churches,

I believe we should let representatives of the Churches of Syrian stock determine what St,.Ephraem actually meant, don’t you agree? And Mar abdisho certainly had that qualification.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

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

I don’t see any of his posts after 10:44 a.m. yesterday.

Specifically: in which post does Michael make claims, and in which post does he supposedly shoot them down?

As far as I understand the Argument from Silence fallacy, the speaker claims certain things of which he himself does not assuredly know and is unable to follow up on if pressed.

I do not believe Michael has fallen into this fallacy, at least not yet. He has made numerous statements concerning papal prerogatives, and true he has not yet provided support for these claims; but nor yet has he been asked to provide support.

If Michael were to say, in a subsequent post, “Well, I don’t have time to post support.” – well, then he would be guilty of the argument from silence fallacy.

I think, before accusing Michael of being guilty of the argument from silence fallacy, you need to first give him the chance to back his claims, at least some of which you appear to disagree.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Specifically: in which post does Michael make claims, and in which post does he supposedly shoot them down?

See his post #182, and my post#189.

I think, before accusing Michael of being guilty of the argument from silence fallacy, you need to first give him the chance to back his claims, at least some of which you appear to disagree.

Let us see, though I am confident he cannot. I have been where Michael now is. I have used the same arguments in the past against the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mardukm:

The consensus appears in both the idea that St. Peter had primatial authority among the Apostles and the idea that the Primatial authority of St, Peter has been handed down in the Apostolic Succession to his immediate successors,

The passing down of the Primatial authority of St. Peter is not directly mentioned in the passage by St. Ephraem. It can be implied.

Who would be Peter’s immediate successors? Who sits in the see of Peter?

This is very distinct and different from 1) the amorphous Petrine succession granted to ALL bishops or

Amorphous?

According to St. Cyprian of Carthage, the episcopate is successor of Peter.

1. the utter denial of Petrine primatial authority that is proposed by other apostolic Churches,

Which other apostolic Churches propose such an utter denial of Petrine primatial authority?

I believe we should let representatives of the Churches of Syrian stock determine what St,.Ephraem actually meant, don’t you agree? And Mar abdisho certainly had that qualification.

Should the non-Christian Jews interpret the OT for Gentile Christians?

Or: are only Jewish Christians to correctly determine what the OT means???

Just because they’re of the same stock does not necessarily give them an edge on interpretation.

In interpreting the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, Rome traditionally has looked, not to the interpretations of the Popes of Alexandria and the miaphysite Copts, but to those of the Roman Popes and his theologians.

 

[veritashunter]

To all regarding the Papcy and the Assyrian Church:

Everyone is essentially agruing about things that were settled in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. In MT16:13-19 we see Peter getting the keys to the kingdom of heaven and that what he binds on eart is bound in heaven…likewise what he looses on earth shall be loosed in heaven. This language is specific to Peter/Cephas (the supreme pastor of the Church) and only Cephas (meaning: bullwork stone/foundation). We can look at IS 22:22-24 which is the reference to the Key of David of which whatever he opens is forever opened and whatever he closes is forever closed. This also corresponds to RV 3:7 in the words to the Chruch at Philadelphia. In MT 18:16-18 Christ also gives the other apostles the power of binding and loosing (bishops) but not the key to the kingdom. Why? Because the Church is one body and cannot have 2 or more wills. But what many would have us believe is that the the Church (the embodiment and bride of Christ) is almost schizophrenic in her will. If that is the case we are all in big trouble because then there can be no absolute earthly truth if there is no one single earthly authority to define it. But Sacred Scripture does define it in 1 TM 3:14-15. "I am writnig to you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." Notice St. Paul doesn’t say the “pillars” or “foundations” of truth. It is singular in its authority.

Although I love my Protestant brothers and sisters (as I was formerly Protestant), they would have you believe that there is no one in charge of the Church on earth. Abraham gave over his authority to Isaac, Moses to Aaron, and Jesus to Peter, and so on and so on. That is why we are ONE apostolic catholic Church. What happens to a body without a head? It dies! Even in the Old Testament we see this with Joseph and the Pharaoh. The Pharaoh gave all power and authority over to one who would be in charge of a single effort to save the people…not many devisive and non-convergent paths. Joseph was his Prime Minister as is the See of Peter in the Church. His authority comes from his King.

Sacred Scripture shows in the Book of Acts where St. Paul states “We will confer with Cephas (Peter).” Why? Paul knew he was right about circumcision so whay ask Peter? Because from the beginning Peter was the authority on which Christ built his Church and Paul knew it. Paul was more educated than Peter; a great orator and philosopher even to the ancient Greeks. To Paul’s credit as a man, he accepted his position in Christ assigned to him by our Lord. It doesn’t mean we cannot argue about points of truth as did Paul with Peter, but it was Paul that sought out Peter for just this reason. The final authority of his Holy Office was fully vested in Peter/Cephas (the bullwork/foundation stone). Peter died in Rome (not Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, etc.) therefore his episcopy and holy office were transmitted to the next Bishop of Rome. And, as a result, the Church eventually conquered pagan Rome itself (city and empire). More of God’s wisdom.

The early Church and its fathers from east and west have several texts showing this. Cornelius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian of Carthage, and even in the Councils of Sardica, Constantinople (1), Ephesus, and Chalcedon.

Pope/St. Clement of Rome wrote to Corinth to settle disputes. If there is no power and authority in the Roman See over the entire Church then why the papal epistle? This epistle was even used in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the East in some Chruches although it was later determined to be non-canonical. If there was no authority then why the great reverence? Dionysus of Corinth in 170 AD writes “Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we read you letter (Pope Soter). Whenever we do read it (in the church) we profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement (Pope Clement of Rome).”

The supremacy vs. primacy issue did not raise its head until far about the 7th century AD as a method to justify disobedient acts within the Church (east and west). Sacred Scripture says “Peter, first among the apostles,”. It doesn’t say that these words were just honorary nor did Christ with Peter or when Christ spoke of the Eucharist. If ithis is merely ceremonial wording then maybe Christ didn’t really mean “On you I shall build my church” or “This is my body…this is my blood” or “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you shall have no life in you”. What next? Where does it ever end?

God foresaw our divisive nature and gave us this in the Word Made Flesh/Word Made Man. After that, it doesn’t really matter what my opinion or anyone else thinks…it becomes a matter of obey or don’t. God bless the Assyrian Church for its hmble wisdom.

Veritashunter

 

[Hesychios]

My brother in Christ Marduk, my friend and interlocutor of the ages, peace…

Dear brother Michael,

That’s a typical polemic rejoinder, a fallacious argument from silence.

As it has been said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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.

Why then mention it? Another drive-by blessing from friend to friend?

Are you attempting to make a case for my invincible ignorance, perchance to save my soul? HOW NICE.

Might I add that your recent conversion is no guarantee that you understand Papal prerogatives either. Yet, here we are, once again. No animosity intended.

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.

My brother in Christ, are you prepared to state categorically that…in relation to the eastern Catholic Christians…the Pope has never done these things, recently or in the past?

Are you prepared to state that the bishop of Rome has no right to make these decisions, or perform these tasks with regard to eastern Catholics?

Are you prepared to state that without question, no Pope will ever be able to do these things in the future outside of the Latin Sui Iuris church?

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

Blessings,
Marduk

Unhappily, lack of time does not permit a detailed exposition. So once again, I will begin with the big enchilada, no mere canonical leaf or twig but the taproot of the tree…

***So then,

---

• *** if *anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, **
• *** and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline *and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; **
• *** or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; ***
• *** or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate* both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: **

---

let him be anathema*!
Session 4, Chap 3 article 9
July 1870AD*

---

I have never read anything more unqualified, unrestrained in scope and clearly phrased as this. This is the kind of thing that (when taken to be true) inspires canons, and modifies canons. Do you believe it to be true?

Details of how this has played out in the operations of Eastern Catholic churches will follow as time permits. Anyone else who has substance to contribute to this discussion should feel free to do so.

Your friend in Christ, now and ever and forever
Michael

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael

My brother in Christ Marduk, my friend and interlocutor of the ages, peace… As it has been said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

When there is so much evidence to the contrary, then this statement has no merit.

Why then mention it? Another drive-by blessing from friend to friend?

It is for the benefit of polemic readers who do not have the understanding or humility to take brotherly correction and might take it as an insult

Are you attempting to make a case for my invincible ignorance, perchance to save my soul? HOW NICE.

I wasn’t thinking of that at the time, but now that you mention it…

Might I add that your recent conversion is no guarantee that you understand Papal prerogatives either. Yet, here we are, once again.

Except I have several times explained and defended my position on the papacy in CAF which refutes the polemic understanding and I get no response. So the polemicists refute by their silence what you surmise here. In contrast, there is always a solid response with mountains of evidence from Catholics every time polemicists attempt to argue against the papacy.

No animosity intended.

Does not need to be said.

My brother in Christ, are you prepared to state categorically that…in relation to the eastern Catholic Christians…the Pope has never done these things, recently or in the past?

Once, the Maronites were required to insert filioque into the Creed. But that was not a unilateral move by the Pope, but was rather in response to the desire of the Maronite hierarchs’ desire to be in communion with Rome (in any case, as you may have seen in another thread, the use of filioque is not absent from the Syrian Tradition). All your other claims are bereft of any merit.

Are you prepared to state that the bishop of Rome has no right to make these decisions, or perform these tasks with regard to eastern Catholics?

He has supreme appellate jurisdiction in these matters, and can enforce subscription to a universal canon of the Church, as I have always maintained. This is not the same as the exaggerated possibility of a wanton, uncontrolled exercise of papal prerogatives as polemicists are wont to presume.

Are you prepared to state that without question, no Pope will ever be able to do these things in the future outside of the Latin Sui Iuris church?

Yes he can do so by virtue of hiis supreme appellate authority. I don’t deny it, but rather support it, for that is a prerogative given him by the Ecumenical Councils…

Unhappily, lack of time does not permit a detailed exposition.

Rather, you shouldn’t waste your time. You won’t find the evidence. Though you can probably copiously quote modern anti-Catholic authors giving their opinions on the matter - once again, without the evidence.

So once again, I will begin with the big enchilada, no mere canonical leaf or twig but the taproot of the tree.

***So then,
if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,… ***

As I suspected. In other words, no response or no evidence. I guess you never read the explanation given by the Council Fathers themselves of this heady language that I provided in the old thread “Papal prerogatives.” Your litany of supposed laissez-faire powers the Pope possesses were basically denied by the Council Fathers. I’d rather listen to how the Catholic Church understands her own doctrines rather than a polemicist’s understanding of them. I’m certain you would feel the same about the doctrines of the EO Church, correct?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[antgaria]

Dear brothers and sisters,

Peace.

I am sorry for my absence on the forum, but I have been caught up in some work that needed my attention. I am quite often busy on the weekends… I wanted to digress a bit from where the argument has gone and go back to tackling the issue of what the Church of the East maintains. I’m afraid that unfortunately, currently, it will be hard for those in the Catholic Communion and those from the Eastern Orthodox one to come to terms on the issue of Papacy, and it isn’t really the main point of this thread.

I wanted to address some issues that our brother Hesychios brought up.

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.

Well, this issue is somewhat hard to understand fully, as we don’t really understand how the Church of the East could have maintained what it did approaching it from the Western point of view. It is interesting to see that the CotE did not really believe itself to be out of communion with the Catholic Church in the West except because of necessity. It is not just Mar Abdisho individually in this situation. Interesting enough, it would explain why not so long after Mar Abdisho, when the Church of the East was in turmoil over the rights of succession, one party would make its case to the Pope of Rome and secure his blessings for their candidate as the Patriarch. Ghosty brought up something of the sort before when he mentioned about the Church in India. I would be lying if I was to say that it is straightforward and simple, and there is definitely instances where the CotE held on to the traditions of its Fathers, even against the Ecumenical Synods, so its really an interesting relationship.

There is also another interesting instances of the CotE seeking help, guidance, and other communications with the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, I am only taking a small break from my work, so I don’t have too much time to dig up the material, but one example stands in my mind right now as something of an oddity that needs to be considered. I am not well versed in our Church’s history, so I would need a lot of research and help from our clergy to be able to present information. And it would take a long long paper actually to cover everything. Most of these quotes and notes I have taken down from lectures, discussions, and help from our clergy and especially H.G. Mar Bawai. Then I have often checked through the writings where I am able, to find out more about what these Saints actually thought. I am learning, God help me.

Anyways, the one example is that Rabban Sauma was received in 1288 by Pope Nicholas IV who gave him communion on Palm Sunday, and also on another occasion allowed him to celebrate Qurbana according to the CotE tradition. The Pope also commissioned Rabban Sauma, the CotE Mongolian monk, to be his representative and visit the Christians in the East. And he also gave him a tiara to take and present to the current Patriarch of the CotE in recognition and endorsement of his patriarchy.

So, the relationship between the CotE and the Church in the West was never really a straight forward easy to understand black and white one. And there really is a lot that can be explored and written on from that stand point. The visits by Rabban Sauma has so much questions opened up for me, that I am hoping to be able to explore just that. There’s alot of room for learning and research, but what JJ2011 has said is of interest in that it is a general Syriac tradition to declare a primacy, with rights as we can see in the Canons, of the Patriarch of Rome over those of the others. What those rights were, we can argue back and forth, but the place that was given to Rome as successor to Peter and Paul, in that that was the city of their Holy Martyrdom, that can not be denied.

Now, just for a quick run down on what some of our venerable Church Fathers have said regarding the position of Peter and Rome.

Mar Ephrem the Great undeniably give Peter a central role among the Apostles. I would like to add more quotes to that which was brought up. The following is put into the mouth of Christ our Lord. Before anyone attacks Mar Ephrem for putting words into the mouth of our Lord, remember Mar Ephrem had a different approach to theology. His was a poetic form of writing, and his writings should really be studied. Jesus says to Simon, “You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples.” And again, “Through you I will give drink to all people.” And again, “I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that as the heir, you may be executor of My treasure.”

Mar Aphrahat, Mar Yacob and other ancient CotE fathers and writings have similar emphasis of the primacy of St. Peter.

 

[antgaria]

The Canons have already been talked about, from Mar Marutha to Mar Abdisho. Allow me to mention really quickly Mar Bawai the Great {the name-sake of our Bishop Mar Bawai Soro}. When Mar Bawai is writing against Eutyches and others, he writes that their heresy were brought to an end “through the holder of the see of great Peter, the marvelouys Leo, and henceforth again the son of the accursed wolf was found to be expelled…” I do not want to get into the old debate of whether Nestorius was “Nestorian”, and who was monophysite and what else have you. There have been times of misunderstandings. By the mercy of God, now is a time when we can sit and talk and understand each other and see whether we really hold the heresies we accuse each other. The main point of this quote is to show that even in the very early 6th century, we already have a definite identification with Pope Leo and the see of Peter by one of the greatest of the Church of the East fathers and doctors.

I said I’d make it short, and I think I was not able to do that. I’m sorry that I rushed through things, but as it is, I am wondering if I will get much sleep tonight. I had more to say about some speculative questions of mine that I would love to hear feedback from, especially from Marduk, Hesychios, and some of the others. I will hopefully free up by Sunday night, if not Monday morning, and will post again.

Have a blessed Sunday, and again, thank you for your prayers during this time of searching for our diocese.

In Christ,
Anthony

 

[natsclem]

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

In here, we must differentiate the ideal from the actual. The ideal would have been that all churches, in particular the ACoE, should have the Bishop of Rome as their boss in doctrines, worship, discipline, etc. But what happened was that factors like ethnocentrism and politics got in the way.

 

[jj2011]

Anyways, the one example is that Rabban Sauma was received in 1288 by Pope Nicholas IV who gave him communion on Palm Sunday, and also on another occasion allowed him to celebrate Qurbana according to the CotE tradition. The Pope also commissioned Rabban Sauma, the CotE Mongolian monk, to be his representative and visit the Christians in the East. And he also gave him a tiara to take and present to the current Patriarch of the CotE in recognition and endorsement of his patriarchy.

So, the relationship between the CotE and the Church in the West was never really a straight forward easy to understand black and white one. And there really is a lot that can be explored and written on from that stand point. The visits by Rabban Sauma has so much questions opened up for me, that I am hoping to be able to explore just that.

There is a fascinating book length historical account about Raban Sauma edited by E.A. Wallis Budge under the title, The Monks of Kublai Khan, London 1928.

I warmly recommend it to you and to your bishop, along with the Arthur Voobus work already cited.

–jj2011

 

[jj2011]

Raban Sauma was not the only case of an East Syrian prelate attempting to re-establish communion with Rome. The following is from an unpublished ms. I have worked on for years:

"In 1237 the priest Philip, a Dominican prior in the Holy Land, wrote a report for the pope about the conversions of certain East and West Syrian prelates. In spite of the less than exact terminology used by Philip, we leave his words as they are. The Dominican priest wrote:

"…the patriarch of the East Jacobites, a man venerable indeed for his knowledge, morals and age, with a tremendous entourage of archbishops, bishops and monks of his nation, came this year to adore in Jerusalem. We explained to him the word of the Catholic faith, and divine grace cooperated so greatly that we reached the point that on Palm Sunday, in the solemn procession… he promised and swore obedience to the holy Roman Church, abjuring all heresy as well; and he gave us his profession of faith in Chaldean and Arabic, for an everlasting testimony. He even received our habit as he left. He is in charge of the Chaldeans, Medes, Persians and Armenians… and in other kingdoms his prelature is so vast that seventy provinces obey him, in which countless Christians live… Two archbishops acted in like manner-- one a Jacobite from Egypt, and another, a Nestorian from the east, but they have their prelatures and subjects in Syria and Phoenicia… We have already received several letters from another prelate who is in charge of all whom the Nestorian heresy separated from the Church, whose prelature extends through greater India, and the kingdom of Prester John, and throughout the kingdoms nearer to the East… he promised that he wants to obey and return to the bosom of ecclesiastical unity. We also sent brothers into Egypt, to the patriarch of the Egyptian Jacobites… from whom we also heard that he wants to return to the unity of the church… to him are subject India Minor, Ethiopia and Libya along with Egypt… [Raynaldus, ad annum 1237, 87]

"In 1247 Raban Ara, patriarchal vicar for the far flung East Syrian church, sent this missive to Pope Innocent IV [1243-1254]:

‘To the presence of the magnificent pope, from him who requests his prayers in support of his own weakness-- Raban Ara, vicar of the east, venerating his hands. To the father of fathers, glory of pastors… interceding for the people of the Lord, perfect in divine things, excellent in spiritual things. To the sun of justice whose light arises over the four corners of the earth who shines and is resplendent in the holy Catholic churches. To the Cherub in the body and Seraph in the flesh holding the see of Blessed Peter; to my most holy lord, pope of the city of Rome and of all regions of the world before God…’ [Raynaldus, ad annum 1247, 32]

"Raban Ara’s letter goes on to mention a profession of faith that he was sending in the name of several East Syrian bishops:

‘Now we have sent to you, by the hands of the said brethren, your messengers, a libellus [profession of faith] that we have brought from the bosom of the east, that is, from the land of China, and another profession of faith from the archbishop of Nisibis, which was signed by two other archbishops and three bishops… We also profess the holy supreme pontiff of Rome, and universal father of all Christ’s faithful: and we confess that he is the successor of Blessed Peter, universal vicar of Jesus Christ over all the children of the church, from the east even unto the west, whose love and affection is confirmed in our hearts, and we are under his obedience; and we request and implore his blessing, and we are prepared for his every precept… All the prelates of the east who are among us, Archbishops and Bishops, and priests and religious and the other faithful, make supplication to you and greet you with prayers, and ask of you a prayer and a blessing…’" [Raynaldus, ad annum 1247, 35]

 

[assyrian73]

“Try to imagine if a modern Roman Catholic bishop was excommunicated, and attempted to take his diocese out of the Roman Catholic church and into another. I am not arguing about whether it would be possible, I am asking you how it would feel…”

I appreciate your comment in this topic, this should Chaldean Catholic Church ask itself
While one of her Bishop in San Diego / USA dealing with Mr Bawai Soro the former Bishop of the ACOE. In addition, Fr Youshia Sanaa one of Mar Sarhad Jammo’s Bishop of Chaldena Church, present at court his affidavit in favor of ex- Bishop Soro defending him before the Judge for he Soro is not doing any wrong for having three Churches even after being suspended but NOT excommunicated yet now not in future. So the question is what interest Chaldean Catholic Church has in this case to support Soro? Why Vatican allow such act by allowing Mar Sarhad to involve in? is it really about “Unity”?

 

[ronyodish]

assyrian73,

Your Church made a mistake by suspending Bishop Mar Bawai Soro. After his suspension, Mar Bawai did not want to be a loner bishop, but was deciding whether to seek full communion with the Catholic Church or with the Ancient Church of the East. He elected to seek full communion with the CC.

Your Church’s suspension of Bishop Mar Bawai is uncanonical and unjust, and so Fr. Youshia Sana defended him. Why blame the Vatican and Bishop Mar Sarhad, when you should be blaming your Church for suspending this Bishop in the first place?

We cared about him and supported him in this unjust way that your Church dealt with him. Don’t blame us for showing our care for him, your Church should not have done what it did to this very good and faithful bishop.

God bless,

Rony

 

[ronyodish]

The following is from an unpublished ms. I have worked on for years

jj2011,

If you ever publish a book, let me know, I’d love to buy a copy! If the price is reasonable of coarse

God bless,

Rony

 

[veritashunter]

assyrian73,

Your Church made a mistake by suspending Bishop Mar Bawai Soro. After his suspension, Mar Bawai did not want to be a loner bishop, but was deciding whether to seek full communion with the Catholic Church or with the Ancient Church of the East. He elected to seek full communion with the CC.

Your Church’s suspension of Bishop Mar Bawai is uncanonical and unjust, and so Fr. Youshia Sana defended him. Why blame the Vatican and Bishop Mar Sarhad, when you should be blaming your Church for suspending this Bishop in the first place?

We cared about him and supported him in this unjust way that your Church dealt with him. Don’t blame us for showing our care for him, your Church should not have done what it did to this very good and faithful bishop.

God bless,

Rony

Dear brother Ronyodish:

I must tend to agree with you. It seems that all is permitted in many parts of Orthodoxy against the Catholic (Universal) Church {not the Roman Catholic Church} and those choosing to be in communion with her. What would be the difference if this bishop left one Orthodox assembly and moved to another close relative Orthodox church? Very little!

It seems that so many Orthodox patriarchs (though not all) are very comfortable when claiming themselves to be Orthodox and catholic. But, when this bishop essentially reverses the role to one who is orthodox and chooses to be Catholic “then the proverbial theological wheels fall off of the wagon”. It is ok for Catholics to become Orthodox or for the Orthodox Patriarchs to have conversations with the Anglicans about coming into communion with them (as has been done in the past) who abandoned the authority of Rome (its due and true Patriarchy), yet it is unacceptable for the reverse to occur.

And, to what end or result? To boast that “I was right and you were wrong” while maintaining the divide between the parts of His body (the Church). The Christian world is under seige from Islam, atheism, paganism, moral relativism, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, apathy, all of which are manifestations of the evil one himself, and we (as apostolic Christians) have reduced ourselves to this drivell and bantor. We should be ashamed!

This man was accepted in exactly the manner as is anyone else who wishes to come to the Catholic Church. We either agree and submit or do not. No more or less than if he was a lay person as are we. And even in this capacity we as Catholics (east and west) extend the sacraments to all Orthodox in the case that they do not have access to their own sacramental communion for reasons of geography, hardship, etc. The Melkite Catholic Church openly offers the sacraments to Romans, Melkites, Ruthinians, Romanians, etc., etc., and, YES, the Orthodox as well, at all times. But the “true Orthodox” as I have many times heard the Byzantine Orthodox often claim (insulting many other churches of the east such as the Coptics) do not extend this to Catholics or these other sacramental and apostolic churches. These arguments are childish and juvenile at best…and bordering on a form of sacramental Protestantism in the worst cases.

Peter (the supreme pastor/prime minister of the Church) and Paul (the great teacher of the nations) were martyred at Rome…not Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem (and Constantinople didn’t even exist yet). So that is where Peter’s successive authority and episcopy were transmitted to the next in line…and so on and so on. Popes are not perfect and impecable as men but their holy office is infallible. Orthodoxy seems to focus its attention on the man rather than the holy office…why then was Mathias chosen?..“as the words of the prophet say ‘may another take his holy office’”.

I was born into a Protestant fundamentalist Christian tradition. I love my Protestant brothers and sisters, but they are in error. My mother was the first Catholic convert in the history of either my father’s or my mother’s known ancestry. And just like her parents she had many imperfections as do I. But she did for me and my siblings exactly what this bishop and his priests have chosen to do for their faithful followers. They have defered to the authority of the Catholic (Universal) Church that just happens to have its supreme pastor at the Church of Rome. Heck, if Peter and Paul had died in Cleveland we would be having a completely different discussion but they did not…they died at Rome and paid a price so great for us to have true communion with one another. One by crucifuxion (like our Lord) upside down and one in the manner of the forerunner. To act as though we have the authority to reject their apostolic authority and lineage binding us as one body is as arrogant as were the pagans of their time but even worse for us as we have the Fullness of Truth revealed in Christ Jesus.

This bishop is imperfect as are all men…as am I…as is the Pope as a man…as is my own mother, but thank God that she chose to come into full communion with the Catholic (Universal) Church. For at age nine I was received and baptized into His body…the spouse of our Lord…the Church. I am still quite imperfect and can only be perfected by my Lord and his embodiment, the Church. And from my mother’s courage great fruit has flowed from the vine…now more than half of my extended family on my mother’s side is Catholic and proud of it. I hope that this bishop sees that fullness overflow in his church.

God bless this man, this preist who is a bishop, for his courage and humility in a great time of trouble for him…a thing we could all use and benefit from to receive the greatest gift of all…GRACE!

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

PS - I am the biggest sinner I know. Please pray for me as I will for all of you. God bless.

 

[Allyson]

In here, we must differentiate the ideal from the actual. The ideal would have been that all churches, in particular the ACoE, should have the Bishop of Rome as their boss in doctrines, worship, discipline, etc. But what happened was that factors like ethnocentrism and politics got in the way.

Umm, liturgy and discipline and fall under the prerogative of the sui juris Churches, the the Bishop of Rome.

 

[antgaria]

Raban Sauma was not the only case of an East Syrian prelate attempting to re-establish communion with Rome. The following is from an unpublished ms. I have worked on for years:

Dear Brother JJ2011,

Thank you for the recommendations. I am aware of the book by Budge, and it is in my list of things to get to. Unfortunately, for several years, I have been quite buzy with many things happening in life, especially with the church situation too, and I am hoping to get to it soon enough… God willing.

As for the manuscript, when you have a chance to publish your work, please let me know about it as well. I am wondering something… the quotes you have might be related to something I had heard about which was one of our Patriarch of the CotE profession of faith to the Pope long time ago. I think the profession might be what you quoted with the Rabban Ara quotes you provided. Are these manuscripts in Latin?

Brother Rony, and all,
Thank you for your support, in prayer, and also your help in clarifying alot of what is at stake here. Many of us who chose to support Mar Bawai saw that he had been treated unfairly. But furthermore, we saw that alot of what was at stake was the ability to continue to be at peace and one with our Christian brothers, especially those in the Chaldean Catholic Church.

Again, I go back to, if we are to act together, and agree with each other, and believe each other to be fully orthodox in belief, and believe that we each have maintained the apostolic traditions and teachings handed down to us, why would we not make a move towards what is the only logical conclusion, which is full communion. Now to take it one step further, as our tradition clearly places primacy among the patriarchs to the Pope of Rome who is the See of Sts. Peter and Paul, then the only issues standing before accepting the primacy, once the common beliefs and christology are affirmed, are personal, vanity, pride, lack of desire for accountability, and whatever else that should NOT interfere in a Christian relationship between us.

Now we will no longer have to take much heat and flak for our youth participating in the Catholic retreat, or for common prayer with our brothers. That is the fortunate side of things. The unfortunate is that we are now making this trip alone, when it should have been the entire Church and all its prelates making this trip. At this point, if – by the Grace and Will of God – our diocese will be accepted into the Catholic communion, then it will still be our responsibility to pray for and work with the rest of the Assyrian CotE so that one day, they too will be able to put away their pride, and ultranationalism, and follow the Will of God in reconciliation and union. Ut unum sint!

JJ2011, I would love to one day take a look at the manuscripts you mentioned, and to read Arthur Voobus’s works. Unfortunately, I am not a student and don’t have access to the university libraries, and the books are just too expensive. If anyone knows a way for me to be able to check out these works, or any other thing that can be done… that would be awesome.

Peace,
Anthony

 

[jj2011]

Dear Brother JJ2011,

Thank you for the recommendations. I am aware of the book by Budge, and it is in my list of things to get to. Unfortunately, for several years, I have been quite buzy with many things happening in life, especially with the church situation too, and I am hoping to get to it soon enough… God willing.

As for the manuscript, when you have a chance to publish your work, please let me know about it as well. I am wondering something… the quotes you have might be related to something I had heard about which was one of our Patriarch of the CotE profession of faith to the Pope long time ago. I think the profession might be what you quoted with the Rabban Ara quotes you provided. Are these manuscripts in Latin?

Yes, during the Crusades there were apparently quite a few eastern bishops who re-established communion with Rome or offered Catholic professions of faith to Rome’s representatives. In some cases these were preserved by church historians such as Odericus Raynaldi, who wrote in Latin. I do hope you will keep your bishop abreast of what you are learning here.

JJ2011, I would love to one day take a look at the manuscripts you mentioned, and to read Arthur Voobus’s works. Unfortunately, I am not a student and don’t have access to the university libraries, and the books are just too expensive. If anyone knows a way for me to be able to check out these works, or any other thing that can be done… that would be awesome.

Peace,
Anthony

You should consider an interlibrary loan; I have given my local librarians quite a workout with these, and they generally do a phenomenal job.