R
ronyodish
Guest
:byzsoc:
God bless,
Rony
Assyrians Elect To Enter Into Full Communion W/ Catholic Church
- Status
God bless,
Rony
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Father Andy says hi Anthony. Pe@ce be to you.
*Is it not fitting that grace should return to its Author by the same channel that conveyed it to us? ~ St. Bernard
This channel is Our Lady.
She who gave birth to the Head, Christ, must consequently give birth to the whole Body.
*
po18guy
Well-known member
However, the power to bind and loose remained. Any hardness of heart was for them to explain before God. It remains for us to deny ourselves and join with all Christian brothers and sisters as One in Christ… It is my fervent hope, and is a portent of great things occurring in our presence. This is a great sign to the Gentiles in the name of unity.
Christ’s peace.
A
antgaria
Guest
Dear Chaldean Rite,
Please say hi to Father Andy and give him my love.
Peace,
Anthony
V
veritashunter
Guest
Dear Antgaria/Anthony,
Three words: Welcome home, brother! Our Catholic house is large and has plenty of room for you and all. Don’t fret and worry…in time others will return home as well.
Some will choose not to do so and for them we must pray in earnest and utter humility so that we can all set aside any personal bias to make the prospect of returning home to the Catholic Communion as welcoming as possible for those considering it.
The rest will come (InschAllah/God willing), but in His time…not ours. You know the old saying…“The best things in life are worth waiting for.” Church by church, family by family, and believer by believer, we will again be one holy catholic and apostolic Church (fully united). Because the more that come home year after year…the harder it will be for others to resist the urge to return home to their true family.
And no matter where you find yourself you are equally welcome to celebrate in any of our Roman, Melkite, Maronite, Ruthenian, Romanian, etc. Catholic churches because we are all one family in God.
Ain’t it just great bein’ family! Fine as frog hair! Sorry, my Appalchian heritage started to emerge for a moment…ok…I’m back now. I hope that made you laugh! This family accepts all kinds…even Irish hillbillies like me. By the way, I say that with genuine ethnic pride. I love my rural Appalchian roots. But, as you so rightly stated, my ethnic family pride must be last while my family pride in the Church must be always first.
There is always room at the table in this house for one more celebrant. Thank God for the bread that never ends. “For do we all not partake of the same loaf”.
Yours in Christ,
Veritashunter
A
assyrian73
Guest
Veritashunter
“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!”
Dear bro.
No body is against anybody for chose any Christian Domination to follow, like in the case of Mr. Bawai Soro the former bishop of ACOE, it was very simple for him to hand over every thing belong to the ACOE and join RCC or any Church he like, BUT, the case is not as you thinking about, that “we are against RCC for he want to be in communion with her”, Please do not be like those Islamic Extremists they think should every body convert to Islam in order to go to Paradise!, no one has any right to impose any Idea upon any member of any church especially Apostolic Church who got Baptized in the name of Holy Trinity. This is one of the fundamental Theology should every Apostolic Church have to practice. The bishop you support, he took our Church to Court for not handling three Churches and other properties that were already belong to the ACOE, if he was attending to join any church, why he was to take the Properties that were built before he was even BORN? The Patriarch along with all Bishops are against the Full-Communion with any Church that in the end will lead to submit the Independency of our Church. ACOE is happy to have any Fraternal, Humility, Love etc Relation with any Apostolic Church except the Supremacy.
“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!”
Dear bro.
No body is against anybody for chose any Christian Domination to follow, like in the case of Mr. Bawai Soro the former bishop of ACOE, it was very simple for him to hand over every thing belong to the ACOE and join RCC or any Church he like, BUT, the case is not as you thinking about, that “we are against RCC for he want to be in communion with her”, Please do not be like those Islamic Extremists they think should every body convert to Islam in order to go to Paradise!, no one has any right to impose any Idea upon any member of any church especially Apostolic Church who got Baptized in the name of Holy Trinity. This is one of the fundamental Theology should every Apostolic Church have to practice. The bishop you support, he took our Church to Court for not handling three Churches and other properties that were already belong to the ACOE, if he was attending to join any church, why he was to take the Properties that were built before he was even BORN? The Patriarch along with all Bishops are against the Full-Communion with any Church that in the end will lead to submit the Independency of our Church. ACOE is happy to have any Fraternal, Humility, Love etc Relation with any Apostolic Church except the Supremacy.
A
assyrian73
Guest
Ronyodish
“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.
According to the canons of any church, no church has any permission to involve in Internal affairs of other Churches unless if there is a full-communion Relation between these churches.
“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?”
Firstly, no one has asked your church opinion whether it was Canonical or not? Secondly Fr. Youshia’s involve it was completely wrong and UNCANONICAL according to the Canons of Apostolic Churches. If you can read Arabic Language, go to Baina AL-Nahrain Magazine, and read, the Articles of Late Fr. Yousif Habbi about the Canons and Traditions of the Church of the East regarding Synods and the Supremacy of the See of Saliq-Oqtesphon.
And Finally, It seems you are unaware of the reasons that lead to Suspend Soro?
“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”
What do you mean by “WE”, it is only Mar Sarhad, what about other Bishops in the Chaldean Church? I challenge you if you bring any other Bishop name in this case except Mar Sarhad. All Bishops in Iraq are against what Mar Sarhad doing and involving in this case.
“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.
According to the canons of any church, no church has any permission to involve in Internal affairs of other Churches unless if there is a full-communion Relation between these churches.
“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?”
Firstly, no one has asked your church opinion whether it was Canonical or not? Secondly Fr. Youshia’s involve it was completely wrong and UNCANONICAL according to the Canons of Apostolic Churches. If you can read Arabic Language, go to Baina AL-Nahrain Magazine, and read, the Articles of Late Fr. Yousif Habbi about the Canons and Traditions of the Church of the East regarding Synods and the Supremacy of the See of Saliq-Oqtesphon.
And Finally, It seems you are unaware of the reasons that lead to Suspend Soro?
“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”
What do you mean by “WE”, it is only Mar Sarhad, what about other Bishops in the Chaldean Church? I challenge you if you bring any other Bishop name in this case except Mar Sarhad. All Bishops in Iraq are against what Mar Sarhad doing and involving in this case.
R
ronyodish
Guest
assyrian73,
I will address your comments on Friday or Saturday. I will be busy in the next few days.
God bless,
Rony
I will address your comments on Friday or Saturday. I will be busy in the next few days.
God bless,
Rony
V
veritashunter
Guest
N
natsclem
Guest
Yap, including liturgy and discipline should be under the authority of the Bishop of Rome–his office must review and approve everything. Otherwise, what kind of supreme authority is that? Where in scripture that every apostle were given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and earth? It is given explicitly to Peter only not even to Paul.Umm, liturgy and discipline and fall under the prerogative of the sui juris Churches, the the Bishop of Rome.
If local/national Churches would like to have their own liturgy and canon law, the Bishop of Rome must exercise authority; if he approved them then they are approved in heaven; if they are rejected, they are rejected in heaven. I would rather believe in the word of Christ than to side with what is “politically correct.” Besides, for me religion is all about eternal salvation; if it is not, why should I be concerned with religion and be religious? All our efforts, then, are useless and futile (1 Thessalonians 3:4-6, 1 Corinthians 15:12-19). We are to be pitied more than all men.
If God showed us the easiest and clearest way, why are we trying to make it difficult looking for ways that are “politically correct”.
If you are a patriarch, is it not easier to say, “Hey, Holy Father, you are the successor of St. Peter, to whom the Lord Jesus entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven saying ‘whatever you bound on earth is bound; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven’, now here are our petitions for our particular needs and holy desires for your judgment and approval”? That is easier than to ponder whole night and day in fasting and prayer trying to discern the right thing to do to avoid hurting someone’s else ego at the same time to do exactly the Lord’s will.
One may say “what if he will abuse that power?” Well, if he would, he is accountable to the Lord. The Lord will certainly punish him even to cast him in hell. and that is the Lord’s prerogative.
I think, we are just lacking in Faith, Hope, & Love for the Lord. That’s why it is often very difficult for us to submit to religious (even civilian) authority while we enjoy having power in our own hands.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother natsclem,
The notion of independence in the area of discipline and Liturgy is not a question of obedience. Rather, it is a matter of recognizing the validity, the antiquity, the apostolicity, and the propriety of what is ours (Eastern and Oriental). The Pope himself recognizes this, but we do not gain the validity of our LIturgies and disciplines thereby. Our Liturgies and discplines are valid by virtue of Tradition and that alone. Even the Pope must bow to Tradition, as I’m sure you will agree.
I often ask the following question to non-Catholic polemicists, but now I ask this of you:
The Vatican Council DOGMATICALLY teaches that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Pope to preserve the rights and prerogatives, the ordinary and immediate powers of his brother bishops. How do you propose this can be done if the Pope can or is allowed to intrude into the legitimate prerogatives of his brother bishops?
I have never heard a response from non-Catholic polemicists to this question. Do you have a response?
Blessings,
Marduk
Your understanding of the Catholic Church and the Pope’s prerogatives is very strange to my ears.
The notion of independence in the area of discipline and Liturgy is not a question of obedience. Rather, it is a matter of recognizing the validity, the antiquity, the apostolicity, and the propriety of what is ours (Eastern and Oriental). The Pope himself recognizes this, but we do not gain the validity of our LIturgies and disciplines thereby. Our Liturgies and discplines are valid by virtue of Tradition and that alone. Even the Pope must bow to Tradition, as I’m sure you will agree.
I often ask the following question to non-Catholic polemicists, but now I ask this of you:
The Vatican Council DOGMATICALLY teaches that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Pope to preserve the rights and prerogatives, the ordinary and immediate powers of his brother bishops. How do you propose this can be done if the Pope can or is allowed to intrude into the legitimate prerogatives of his brother bishops?
I have never heard a response from non-Catholic polemicists to this question. Do you have a response?
Blessings,
Marduk
N
natsclem
Guest
I don’t agree with you that the Pope must bow to Tradition if you mean by Tradition as the body of beliefs and practices developed and expressed in the course of time in various churches scattered in different parts of the globe. The Pope is at the service of Tradition–oral transmission of the Word of God (the Teachings of Christ handed-down by His Apostles) thru preaching and liturgical celebrations. He is the protector, so to speak, of the integrity of Christian Faith from which liturgy and morality or discipline must be anchored.
of course, he can intrude to ensure that the liturgy and discipline particular to a Church with apostolic lineage are in accordance with the teachings of Christ and His apostles. Traditions must be in accordance with that teachings. The Petrine ministry is the guarantee of doctrinal consistency of these traditions. It is the duty of the Bishop of Rome as supreme authority in the Church of Christ to guard with diligence and charity what was entrusted by Christ to Peter. He was entrusted to shepherd His flock (John 21:17) that was not entrusted to any other apostles. No wonder then that the Bishop of Rome exercises that duty even unsolicited.
As an example, the Bishop of Rome exercised that authority in evaluating the validity of Anaphora of Addai and Mari (which belongs to the East Syrian liturgical family) thru its instrumentality–the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith declared that it can be considered valid although the words of institution are not explicitly stated but are present in a dispersed way through prayers of praise, thanksgiving and intercession.
Thanks be to God that you have valid liturgies. But, the notion of validity requires that there be an authority of validation. Since no popes in the entire history of Christendom that invalidated your liturgies, it implies that yours are valid by their implicit approval thru silence–that is the tradition that validates your liturgies.
If he granted the patriarchs the prerogative of exercising his authority by way of delegation it does not diminish his authority. But, the patriarchs on their part must be accountable to him as an expression of accountability to Christ. If a patriarch by any reason of inability to exercise his duty befitting his position, the Bishop of Rome has (and must have) the authority to intervene; otherwise who? If he will not, out of respect to such patriarch, he is neglecting his duty of which he is accountable to Christ. Who in his right mind will sacrifice the salvation of souls for the sake of such human respect or for fear of being criticized as dictator? Are you brother?
(Ironically, if you really dislike the Bishop of Rome bordering to hate, my advice is…punish him by letting him exercise his duty to all the Churches. That’s a very tough job, my brother, for him–so tough that he may even give you episcopal ordination at once to pass on his burden to you. Wanna bet?)
If you have different view, show me biblical passages to prove yours.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Dear Marduk,
I have stated this before and I will state it again. No one else seems to understand the Papacy as you do, you are a party of one.
Latin Catholics generally understand what universal jurisdiction means, and support it.
Orthodox generally understand what universal jurisdiction means, and oppose it.
Therefore, most of us have a pretty good common notion what universal jurisdiction really means, we only differ on whether it is proper to the office of the bishop of Rome.
You are coming at this from an entirely different direction. I think that possibly you are taking mostly what Orthodox see as properly acceptable for the office of the bishop of Rome, and believing that to be how it really is.
If only it were so simple.
I do pray that some day you get your wish.
Pax et Bonum,
Michael
A
assyrian73
Guest
I think it is impossible to approve the Authority of Papacy through the Gospel, because it will be a huge contradiction between what the Disciples including Paul thinking of the Message of God to People through His Son Jesus Christ and what we today looking for to approve something I think it was not in the mind of Apostles even when Jesus said to Peter:
Mathew: 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven.”
******In this case I think Paul will be in accountable when he rejected what Peter suggested that every Gentile come to Christianity should observe the Law of Moses?
However, if you read in Mathew: 18:18
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven. So here Jesus giving the Keys of Kingdom to all Apostles not just to Simon isn’t it?
Mathew: 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven.”
******In this case I think Paul will be in accountable when he rejected what Peter suggested that every Gentile come to Christianity should observe the Law of Moses?
However, if you read in Mathew: 18:18
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven. So here Jesus giving the Keys of Kingdom to all Apostles not just to Simon isn’t it?
J
jj2011
Guest
The East Syrian tradition does not disagree with Roman tradition about the unique primacy of Simon Peter, or that the bishop of Rome inherits these prerogatives, as we have already shown from Abdisho of Sobi, the canons attributed to Mar Maruthas and so on.
Where we disagree would be the tendency to make the Catholicos of Seleucia the heir of Peter’s primacy. This tendency is quite old among the East Syrians and can be traced as far back as the synod of Markabta in 424, where Agapetus, bishop of Beit Laphat, said:
…as the Father of truth is one… the Son has chosen only one faithful superintendent, Simon Bar Jonah, surnamed Peter, to whom he made this promise: “Upon this rock I shall build my church,” and “I shall give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” but it was not said by Christ to all the disciples, “Upon you shall I build,” or “to you shall I give.” The gift of the priesthood was granted to all the apostles but the unique principality, that is, the spiritual paternity, was not given to all; and for only one true God, there is only one faithful steward, who is the head, director and procurator of his brethren… these things were defined by our ancient Fathers of the West, and were sent in writing to our ancient Fathers of the East… You are aware, Fathers, that whenever schism and discord have existed among us, the western Fathers have been the helpers and auxiliaries of this Paternity, to which all of us… are bound and attached as are members of the whole body to the head… And now that persecution and anguish have weighed so heavily upon us, time does not allow them to take care of us as before… Come, let us heal the wounds of our people and our clergy; let us expose ourselves to every sort of death for our Father and head, who is our director, our dispenser, distributor of all the riches of the divine treasures, Catholicos Mar Dadishoo, who is for us Peter, head of our ecclesiastical assembly… [J. Chabot, ed., Synodicon Orientale, 292-4]
Where we disagree would be the tendency to make the Catholicos of Seleucia the heir of Peter’s primacy. This tendency is quite old among the East Syrians and can be traced as far back as the synod of Markabta in 424, where Agapetus, bishop of Beit Laphat, said:
…as the Father of truth is one… the Son has chosen only one faithful superintendent, Simon Bar Jonah, surnamed Peter, to whom he made this promise: “Upon this rock I shall build my church,” and “I shall give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” but it was not said by Christ to all the disciples, “Upon you shall I build,” or “to you shall I give.” The gift of the priesthood was granted to all the apostles but the unique principality, that is, the spiritual paternity, was not given to all; and for only one true God, there is only one faithful steward, who is the head, director and procurator of his brethren… these things were defined by our ancient Fathers of the West, and were sent in writing to our ancient Fathers of the East… You are aware, Fathers, that whenever schism and discord have existed among us, the western Fathers have been the helpers and auxiliaries of this Paternity, to which all of us… are bound and attached as are members of the whole body to the head… And now that persecution and anguish have weighed so heavily upon us, time does not allow them to take care of us as before… Come, let us heal the wounds of our people and our clergy; let us expose ourselves to every sort of death for our Father and head, who is our director, our dispenser, distributor of all the riches of the divine treasures, Catholicos Mar Dadishoo, who is for us Peter, head of our ecclesiastical assembly… [J. Chabot, ed., Synodicon Orientale, 292-4]
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
You might not like this, but When Our Lord adresses Peter here, He is using second person SINGULAR, thus is addressing Peter ONLY. Viz:
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth,
it shall be bound also in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,
it shall be loosed also in heaven.
et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum
et quodcumque ligaveris super terram
erit ligatum in caelis
et quodcumque solveris super terram
erit solutum in caelis
I speak only for the Latin. The Greek may be different.
V
veritashunter
Guest
Dear Brother Marduk,
You have made an excellent point. The mandates of the Church require the Pope to follow Sacred Scripture & Tradition in remembering the New Testament stating, “Hold fast to these traditions that have been taught to you by word or epistle.” In that role he must also seek to preserve the local (not independent) Tradition of each particular church as they contribute to the full identity of the greater Catholic Church. The Romans, Melkites, Chaldeans, etc. all hold individual portions of the identity of the Universal Church. In virtue of this we are dependent on our diversity in recognizing our true identity as a whole.
And the Pope must follow the Tradition of the Church. Though, one point needs to be clarified. Some “traditions” of the particular churches have been rejected because they conflict with the “Tradition” of the greater Catholic Church (not the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church). The Pope still has authority over those particular churches in such matters related to Faith & Morals as taught by the entirety of the Church.
One current/relevant present-day example is that of artificial contraception. It is a moral evil and is prohibited by the greater Catholic Church. There is no negotiation on this point because the protection of all human life is fundamental to the entirety of the Catholic Faith. Natural methods of birth control are acceptable provided that they are open to God’s will (such as NFP/Natural Family Planning). Yet any method that is not open to the possibility of life is in opposition to life. Thus, the word “con-ception” means “with (or in accord with) life” while the word “contra-ception” means “against (or in opposition) to life”. Contraception is against life and, therefore, in opposition to God (Who is all life in all things). The saints and early fathers of the Church spoke against these things including artificial contraception, castration (vasectomy-like practice), and abortion as early as the 1st century.
The Egyptians sometimes used a crushed linseed solution mixed with honey that was used internally to prevent conception as it is high in lactic acid. Another was a mixture that caused a woman not to conceive or to miscarry. So this is not a new issue for we “informed and educated” modern folks. Yet, some apostolic and Orthodox churches teach in error that artificial contraception is morally acceptable.
In this instance the Pope still has absolute authority in his role as the supreme pastor of the Catholic Church (not necessarily as just the bishop of the Roman particular church). These practices violate the teachings of Sacred Scripture (GN/Onan put to death) & Sacred Tradition in the writings of the saints and fathers of the Universal Catholic Church (east and west) who have upheld and re-affirmed the teachings of the Church throughout our history. The Pope must protect the entirety of the Church in Truth against all such situations.
The celebration of the Divine Liturgy of a particular church is the “Right of the Rite” unless it iconflicts with the universal teaching of the Catholic Faith (not the Roman Rite). The individualized local expression is what makes our Church truly universal.
John Paul (was) and Benedict (is) dedicated to preserving the “eastern-ness of the east” by instructing them to stay true to the Tradition of their particular churches. Vestments, feast days, particular fasts, rubricks, the language & content of the liturgy, the ethnic style of music, etc. all must be preserved as distinct identities and particular expressions of the same universal Faith & Church.
And the Pope (as a matter of Sacred Scripture & Tradition) must support his fraternal apostolic brothers (Patriarchs) in their roles as spiritual fathers, moral leaders, institutional administrators, and co-guardians of the Truth that is our Catholic Orthodox Faith.
I think one of the biggest oversights on our parts is that we (as lay people) refer to our patriachs in a way that is far too simplified. The enormity of their task and responsibility is emmense, intricately complicated, very stressful, and undoubtedly the most taxing on their very person. They are pulled and drawn upon by everything from vrtue to regional politics especially to our fathers in the middle-east who have long suffered. We should all be charitable and patient with our leaders serving us in Christ as we can hardly imagine the enormity of their burden regardless of whether we are talking about the Pope or the Patriarch of the smallest particular church in our family of Christ.
So many individual sparkling facets in a single uncomparably beautiful jewel illuminated by the light radiating from God; the Church.
Yours in Christ,
Veritashunter
S
steve_b
Guest
Notice,
- you don’t find keys mentioned in these passages. Keys were given only to Peter.
- in MT 18:18 all the apostles got the power to bind and loose, but there were qualifications that didn’t appear in Mt 16:15… when Jesus was talking to Peter specifically.
In rabinical tradition, bind and loose is not the same as one getting the keys.
N
natsclem
Guest
That is what you think.
In Galatians 2:11-20, Paul reprimanded (not rejected) Peter for being a bad example–for fear of the circumcised (Jew), he acted inconsistent with Christian Faith defined in the council of Jerusalem that we are saved by grace alone (Acts 15:6-21)–presided by Peter himself. By his action of distancing (aloof) himself from the Gentiles to join with the coming group of Jews, he was like compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews (circumcised not to mingle with the Gentiles) which he did not actually. But Paul was also guilty of inconsistency. In Acts 16:3-5 Paul ,after the council, circumcised Timothy contrary to the teaching of the council “because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek”. They have done these not because they (Peter & Paul) personally believe in the necessity of circumcision for salvation but for the sake of what we call “political correctness”. What can you say of the Pope praying with Moslems in a mosque and Jews in a synagogue? That’s is for political correctness compromising the proclamation of Salvation in Christ alone.
Matthew 18:18 being addressed generally is a biblical proof of collegial authority on Church morality and discipline. The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are given only to Peter . To harmonize… therefore, that collegial authority is subject to the singular authority of Peter (Matthew: 16:19). Note also the different circumstances or context of the granting of authority–with Peter, it was after his confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”–faith. With the disciples (apostles), it was about a brother (theoretical) who sins–morality/discipline. Christian faith is the basis of Christian liturgy, morality, and discipline.
Don’t let prejudices obstruct the Light of Christ in the Sacred Scripture to enlighten fully our minds and inflame our hearts for the pursuit of the fullness of truth.
Mar Bawai, for sure, was convicted by that Light. He must follow it like the wise men in the Gospel to offer the most fitting worship to the Triune God. Remember Christ said “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (Matthew 10:37)” Therefore, if Mar Bawai loves his father (Mar Dinkha) or his mother (ACoE) more than Christ is not worthy of Christ; if he loves his spiritual children (those under his jurisdiction while bishop of ACoE) more than Christ is not worthy of Christ.
Q
Qaryana_N
Guest
Hello all, I’m new here.
Please allow me to introduce myself. I am Narsai, one of the Readers who is within the diocese of His Grace Mar Bawai Soro. I am also one the people in the original signing of the declaration of intent. I was brought upon this site by my dear brother in Christ antgaria. I am hopeful we will continue to have wonderful discussions about our impending union with the Chaldean Rite and ultimately Rome.
We hope and pray that our Bishop, Mar Bawai Soro will continue to fulfill what the Apostle John said, “That they all may be one,” John 17:21. It is our hope that this verse will reverberate throughout the CotE branches and convict them upon that Light to hopefully one day unite and strengthen themselves in a quest to once again evangelize and preach the Gospel of our Father.
-N.
- Status