Assyrians Elect To Enter Into Full Communion W/ Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaldean_Rite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear All,

Peace,

Sorry… too fast in the posting… Although I did in fact mean to write unreplaceable instead of irreplaceable… mainly as a way to accent it… I did however also mean “rehabilitation” of our venerated persons to the Church and not “rehabitulation”. eeek… not sure what that later word implies at all.

In Christ,
Anthony
 
I think it is not fair to say that the ACOE “Brock” the ecumenical Relation with others, because if you back to the History in third century the Clergies and members of ACOE were persecuted and Killed just because the Persian Empire (Zardoshtian) had suspected them (ACOE) as align with Roman Empire (Christianity), so the War between these two Empires made ACOE out of contact with any Church in anyway. Even in the time of Ephesus Council ACOE was persecuted and Killed by Persian while the West Churches debating on whether Jesus Christ Has ONE Hypostasis and Two Natures or something else. Our church never had any Official or Unofficial word in this matter, simply cos did not take participation. However, later in 486, ACOE decide to take part in all this mess about Philosophying Jesus’ Person, which is our Church never had such Interpretations in the Philosophy way for understanding Jesus Christ. Simply the Theology of ACOE was based on Old Testament, since the Church Defend Nestorius and his Theology through Edessa Students who escape to the Territory of ACOE in Nasibin today north Syria, has begun to elaborate in the dispute over Jesus Personality. Mainly our theology based on Theodore of Mopsuestia. ACOE never recognize the Supremacy of Pope as the Head of the Catholic (Universal) Church, since 410 the Patriarch of The Church of The East Mar Isaac declare independency and Full Sovereignty, today I think the stand of our Church is that Pope is may be The FIRST among Equal as all Orthodox Churches recognizing the Supremacy.
 
Dear Assyrian73,

Sorry, but I am not sure I understand the full extent of what you are trying to say. It has already been established in this forum that the CotE did not participate in the ecumenical councils. You are very right, geo-political circumstances did not allow it.

Especially, in the tolleration of and eventual conversion to Christianity by the Roman Empire, and in times of war between the Parthian/Persian empire and the Roman one, our being Christians led to heavy persecution by the Persian monarchs. This led to our declaring our isolation from our brothers. It has been oft repeated that this was an emergancy situation, and a practical response, and we can easily see that the wording of the council was to consider our patriarchal See “AS” Peter to us.

The Patristics of our Church is clear, the See of Rome is the head of Patriarchs because becaue of its tie to not only St. Peter but to St. Paul as well. The history of our Church is also clear, in that in times of peace, and in times of need, our venerated fathers did NOT hesitate to go westward, and even unto Rome. They always maintained a communion with their Catholic brothers in the west, and only practical reasons separated us.

One further point that is something that I must follow up on, is that Mar Abdisho seems to say that our Catholicos was elevated to the Patriarchate due to need. I cannot comment more on that, because I am still trying to track down the exact text and reasoning.

As for primacy, and “first amongst equals,” it is also clear even to many Eastern Orthodox {not in communion with Rome} theologians, that if the See of Rome is not heterodox {which the Eastern Orthodox claim}, then it would enjoy prime status.

As for the rights of such a status, it is for the CotE episcopacy to discuss what it means, but one is left with an unavoidable fact, that our ecclesiastic beliefs, and our the idea of “order” within the episcopal ranks, and the idea of communion in love and faith, leaves little room in trying to wiggle out of giving the Pope, successor of Peter, and Paul, the bishop of the See of Rome, his dignity, just as we see accepted by our brothers and sisters in the Chaldean Church.

Look to your tradition. If it is that we can say the Orthodoxy of the Roman Church is no longer in question. And if our Orthodoxy is similarly not in question. And just as was quoted from our Canon laws, the Pope is to enjoy similar rights; just “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.” And if the patriarch is just first among his bishops, and is accorded this dignity in divine love, then similarly dignity must be given to the head of the Patriarchs.

So look to your Church Tradition and Teachings, and be honest. Similarly I will continue to search in it, and to grow spiritually so that I can defend my Church and keep it a shining pearl in the world, a Church on Fire. Everything we do we must do in charity and in desire to know Truth, our Lord – “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)

In Christ,
Anthony
 
Dear All,

Peace,

I did over-simplify things a bit. There has been problems of whether we hold orthodox beliefs, and occasional and grevious misunderstanding. But again, how much of that was facilitated by political and practical problems? How much of it was because of an uncharitable approach and condemnation of each others beliefs before sitting down and seeing if maybe in the end, we hold the same beliefs and share the same Faith? In short, so much of our separation was due to the world we live in, and our very own fleshly nature.

Pace e bene,
Anthony
 
Hesychios said:
On the other hand, they may be the “First” of four.
Click to expand...
Chronologically, yes. numerically, probably last. In terms of Catholicity, right after the Catholics.

But I ranked by public awareness… 😉

Ecclesiology is the largest hurdle between uniting the four branches of Apostolic Christianity.

Even when it appears evident from within, it is still a hurdle.
 
antgaria said:
Dear All,

Peace,

I did over-simplify things a bit. There has been problems of whether we hold orthodox beliefs, and occasional and grevious misunderstanding. But again, how much of that was facilitated by political and practical problems? How much of it was because of an uncharitable approach and condemnation of each others beliefs before sitting down and seeing if maybe in the end, we hold the same beliefs and share the same Faith? In short, so much of our separation was due to the world we live in, and our very own fleshly nature.

Pace e bene,
Anthony
Click to expand...
Well put, Anthony (which is also my christian name 🙂 ). Those people who put judgement before understanding can cause great pain.

Welcome to the forums!
Subrosa
 
antgaria said:
Dear All,

In response to Isa Almisry’s question {“how is submitted to Rome going to solve the scandal?”}, our desire join in communion with Rome and to enter the Chaldean Church is not an attempt to resolve scandal. It is that we must be in communion with fellow Christians. We cannot just be on our own, standing “contra mundum,” nor was that ever our intention. We did not want splintering, but rather unity. We did not look to hate, but only to be established in love. And we definitely did not want to start another splinter within the Church of the East. So that is not an option… having a fourth, then maybe fifth, then sixth, etc,etc, branch. No, we remain faithful to our tradition as put forward by our Saints, Doctors, and Fathers. The Church of the East is the “Catholic Church in the East,” meaning it is NOT supposed to be standing alone outside of communion with all, just for whatever reason it feels like, but rather it is to seek to fulfill our Lord’s Prayer and words… “That they all may be one”. (John 17:21)

In conclusion, I ask, please pray that the Lord guide our humble diocese in this journey as we seek the Lord, following His light. And rejoice my brothers in Christ, remembering our Lord Jesus Christ’s declaration, “I have other sheep … they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock …” (John 10:16)

In Christ,
Anthony
Click to expand...
If, and no one has contradicted it, Mar Bawai has been leaning towards Rome, then the scandal might just be the push in the direction he was going anyway. And if that is what he and his flock believe, then that is where they should go.

I haven’t seen a denial about the facts of the scandal, but I don’t know if we have had someone remaining with Mar Dinkha who has responded. If any of it it is true, then the disciplining of Mar Bawai might be a pyrrhic vicotry.

As an Orthodox (and those here can make their own conclusions on how I feel about Orthodoxy), I have to say I don’t understand why the ACOE was excluded from the Middle East Council of Churches, if the council accepts Protestants. The ACOE readjusted its Nestorianism under Babai the Great (I take it Mar Bawai’s namesake) after the Fifth Ecumenical Council and the condemnation of the Three Chapters. Why beleaguer a church further?

Btw, I vaguely remember something written by Mar Shimoon, the catholicos before Dinkha, who pointed out that the funeral service for the catholicos has some reference to St. Peter, and some reference to the catholikos as Peter’s successor. At the time I thought that the Assyrian catholicos claimed succession from Antioch (like the Maronites), but now I am told that is not so. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate Shimoon’s orginal thoughts on the matter.

In any case, as I said I do not have a dog in this fight: I wish the ACOE, Bawai and his flock, the Chaldeans and Rome peace.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Btw, I vaguely remember something written by Mar Shimoon, the catholicos before Dinkha, who pointed out that the funeral service for the catholicos has some reference to St. Peter, and some reference to the catholikos as Peter’s successor. At the time I thought that the Assyrian catholicos claimed succession from Antioch (like the Maronites), but now I am told that is not so. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate Shimoon’s orginal thoughts on the matter.

In any case, as I said I do not have a dog in this fight: I wish the ACOE, Bawai and his flock, the Chaldeans and Rome peace.
Click to expand...
The traditional primate of the Church of the East was the Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, who used to receive his consecration at Antioch.

The Synodicon Orientale edited by Chabot is a collection of synods of the Church of the East. Beginning in the early fifth century, a good many Petrine prerogatives came to be attributed to the Catholicos, who became like a quasi-pope of the Church of the East.

There are, however, as noted earlier on this thread, Syriac canons attributed to St. Maruthas which ackowledge the Roman Pontiff as head of the patriarchs by virtue of the Petrine primacy.
 
antgaria said:
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).[/INDENT]

Anthony
Click to expand...
Thank you, Anthony, and welcome.

The text you quoted is one of the Syriac canons attributed to St. Maruthas in the recension published by Voobus; it also appears in the so called “Arabic Canons of Nicea,” a collection that appears to expand on the original seventy canons attributed to the Saint. This canon also appears in some other eastern nomocanons that use material from the “Arabic Canons of Nicea.”

The Arabic Canons were unknown to the west until the sixteenth century. They consist of about eighty canons, and were considered spurious because the Council of Nicea, of course, only had twenty canons. Voobus has shown that Syriac MS tradition attributes these canons to St. Maruthas.
 
The Synodicon Orientale edited by Chabot is a collection of synods of the Church of the East. Beginning in the early fifth century, a good many Petrine prerogatives came to be attributed to the Catholicos, who became like a quasi-pope of the Church of the East.
Click to expand...
Out of curiousity, and based on some of the quotes and canons mentioned earlier in this thread, was/is the head of the Church of the East viewed (at least at one time) as a kind of “replacement Pope of Rome” by the Church, seperated as it was from the rest of the Christian world?

The language of the quotes seems to point in that direction, and the fact that they come from a group that was “isolated” so early on in the history of the Church is rather striking. What’s most interesting is that if these quotes do indeed date to the 5th century, they pre-date the most explicit “Petrine ministry” quotes from the Pope himself, which seem to have started really popping up with St. Gregory the Great. That they occur outside the Roman Empire is even more interesting, as that would definitely call into question the interpretation of Papal prerogatives as having originated in the political centrality and authority of Rome (and therefore seriously call into question the justification of Constantinople ranking “second” based on those considerations).

I remember when I was first learning about the St. Thomas Churches of India and their initial contact with the Latins I was struck by the accounts of their quick recognition of the Petrine Ministry of Rome (though this recognition quickly withered as abuse of their native traditions occurred at the hands of Latin missionaries). Such quotes and canons certainly go a long way towards explaining the initial warmth and recognition that reportedly occurred, despite the very different cultures and traditions, between the St. Thomas Christians and the Latins.

Most of all the quotes raise in my mind a question that’s chewed at me for awhile: how much of the controversy over the Papacy arose because of an intra-Roman (Eastern and Western) struggle, as opposed to a truely theological struggle over the nature of the Church?

Peace and God bless!
 
I see. This does appear to be a Christian formulation. But, doesn’t the unity of the two natures in the one divine person require that Mary be refered to as the theotokos?
Click to expand...
East and West,

Theotokos, God Bearer, is a legitimate title to describe Our Lady’s relationship to Our Lord in the Incarnation because the son conceived in the womb of Mary and born of her is none other than the Divine Son of God, “true God of true God” as the Creed says.

Christokos, Christ Bearer, is likewise legitimate because the Divine Son of God who in the incarnation “became man” as the Creed says, is none other than the promised Christ or Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament to come.

There are other legitimate ways to explain these expressions of the same Faith, and there are illegitimate ways to explain them. Theotokos and Christokos are complementary expressions when understood correctly.

Anthony mentioned the Aramaic term qnuma (or qnoma). For those who can not afford to purchase Mar Bawai’s book, there are some information online if you google this term.

By the way, if you have some time on your hand, you may want to check out these videos on Patristic Christology given by a Chaldean Catholic priest mostly in English:

Part I
Part II
Part III

God bless,

Rony
 
Ghosty said:
Out of curiousity, and based on some of the quotes and canons mentioned earlier in this thread, was/is the head of the Church of the East viewed (at least at one time) as a kind of “replacement Pope of Rome” by the Church, seperated as it was from the rest of the Christian world?
Click to expand...
The canons attributed to St. Maruthas, like the one I cited, are very much in line with the “Roman Catholic” view of papal primacy of jurisdiction even over the other patriarchs. The Hudra, or divine office, contains many texts acknowledging Peter as Rock of the Church, head of the apostles and so on. There is also recognition that Ss. Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, all as in the “Roman Catholic” tradition.

However, the Synod of Dadisho in 424 takes the Petrine prerogatives and applies them to the Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. In this synod the Catholicos is considered to be as Peter, and begins to enjoy many prerogatives based on his presumed Petrine dignity. Later on, the Catholicos will receive even the power of censoring books-- shades of the Index librorum prohibitorum. One could, then, make the case that the Catholicos became a sort of “replacement pope,” but in such matters as these I prefer to cling wherever possible to specifics.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
It seems to be a bishop and about 3 dozen clergy who would be recieved without property, as the ACofE managed to keep what they had deeds to, from what I gather.

According to the press release:

So it sounds like 1 Bishop, 6 priests and 30 deacons.

How strong they are in faithful, I am not certain at all.

And I would not get to speculating about the TAC just too much yet. Whispers in different quarters have suggested that Rome is considering different proposals at this time. TAC bishops have agreed to remain silent until definative answer has been received. To date, no answer has been received (or baring that, agreements have been made to remain silent)…

Something could happen there yet.
Click to expand...
Don’t hold your breath. I think the TAC thing is going nowhere quickly. I still say they end up converting to Orthodoxy.
 
At the time I thought that the Assyrian catholicos claimed succession from Antioch (like the Maronites), but now I am told that is not so.
Click to expand...
The traditional primate of the Church of the East was the Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, who used to receive his consecration at Antioch.
Click to expand...
Isa Almisry, and jj2011

All three Patriarchs of the Churches of the East (the Chaldean Church Patriarch, the Assyrian Church Patriarch, and the Ancient Church Patriarch) receive their Apostolic Succession not from the line of Antioch that goes all the way back to St. Peter, but from another line that goes all the way back to St. Thomas. They are not Patriarchs of Antioch.

Here is the line for the Assyrian Church Patriarch:
  1. 33 Toma (Thomas)
  2. 33 Bar Tulmay (Bartholomew)
  3. 33 - 45 Addai (Thaddeus)
  4. 45 - 81 Agai, disciple of Addai (from the Seventy Disciples)
  5. 48 - 81 Mari, disciple of Addai (from the Seventy Disciples)
  6. 90 - 107 Abris, relative of the Virgin Mary
  7. 130 - 152 Oraham I
  8. 172 - 190 Yacob I, relative of Yosip the Carpenter
  9. 191 - 203 Ebid M’shikha
  10. 205 - 220 Akhu d’Awu
  11. 224 - 244 Shakhlupa of Kashkar
  12. 247 - 326 Papa Bar Gaggai
  13. 328 - 341 Shimun Bar Sabbai
  14. 345 - 347 Shahdost
  15. 350 - 358 Bar Bashmin
  16. 383 - 393 Tumarsa
  17. 393 - 399 Qaiyuma
  18. 399 - 411 Eskhaq
  19. 411 - 415 Akhkhi
  20. 415 - 420 Yoalaha I
  21. 420 Maana
  22. 421 Qarabukht
  23. 421 - 456 Dadishu
  24. 457 - 484 Bawai or Babu
  25. 484 - 496 Aqaq
  26. 496 - 502 Bawai
  27. 505 - 523 Sheela
  28. 524 - 535 Narsai
  29. 524 - 538 Elisha (dual Patriarchate)
  30. 539 - 540 Polos
  31. 552 - 567 Yosip
  32. 570 - 581 Khazqiyil
  33. 581 - 595 Eshuyow I, Arzunaya
  34. 596 - 604 Soreshu I Garmaqaya
  35. 605 - 608 Greghor, Partaya
  36. 628 - 644 Eshuyow II (Gdalaya or Arab)
  37. 647 - 650 Mar Immeh
  38. 650 - 660 Eshuyow III, Kdayawaya
  39. 681 - 684 Gewargis I
  40. 684 - 692 Yokhannan I, Bar Marta
  41. 686 - 693 Khnaishu I (dual Patriarchate)
  42. 693 - 694 Yokhannan II, Garba
  43. 714 - 728 Sliwazkha
  44. 731 - 740 Pethyon
  45. 741 - 751 Awa
  46. 752 - 754 Surin
  47. 754 - 773 Yacob II
  48. 774 - 778 Khnanishu II (the Assyrian monument in China was erected during his reign)
  49. 780 - 820 Timotheus I
  50. 820 - 824 Esho-barnon
  51. 825 - 832 Gewargis II
  52. 832 - 836 Soreshu II
  53. 837 - 850 Oraham II, Margaya
  54. 850 - 852 Teadasis (Theodoros)
  55. 860 - 872 Sargis, Suwaya
  56. 873 - 884 Annush d’beth Garmay
  57. 884 - 892 Yokhannan III, Bar Narsai
  58. 892 - 898 Yokhannan IV
  59. 900 - 905 Yokhannan V
  60. 906 - 937 Oraham III, Abraza
  61. 937 - 949 Ammanoel I
  62. 961 - 962 Esrail Karkhaya
  63. 963 - 986 Odishu Garmaqaya
  64. 967 - 1000 Mari Aturaya
  65. 1001 - 1012 Yokhannan VI
  66. 1013 - 1022 Yokhannan VII
  67. 1023 - 1027 Eshuyow IV
  68. 1028 - 1049 Elia I
  69. 1049 - 1057 Yokhannan VIII
  70. 1057 - 1072 Soreshu III (Bar Zanbur)
  71. 1072 - 1090 Odishu II (Bar Ars) Aturaya
  72. 1092 - 1109 Makkikha I (Bar Shlemon)
  73. 1111 - 1132 Elia II
  74. 1133 - 1135 Bar Soma (Of Suwa)
  75. 1135 - 1136 Bar Gabbara
  76. 1138 - 1147 Odishu III (nephew of Elia II)
  77. 1148 - 1175 Eshuyow V (from Beth Zodai, Baladaya)
  78. 1176 - 1190 Elia III (Abukhalim)
  79. 1191 - 1222 Yoalaha II (Bar Qaiyuma)
  80. 1222 - 1226 Soreshu IV
  81. 1226 - 1256 Soreshu V (from Baghdad)
  82. 1257 - 1265 Makkikha II
  83. 1265 - 1281 Dinkha I, Arbilaya (from Arbil)
  84. 1281 - 1318 Yoalaha III, Bar Turkaye (Turkish by race)
  85. 1318 - 1328 Timotheus II, Arbilaya
  86. 1329 - 1359 Dinkha II
  87. 1359 - 1368 Dinkha III
  88. 1369 - 1392 Shimun III
  89. 1403 - 1407 Shimun IV
  90. 1407 - 1420 Elia III
  91. 1420 - 1447 Shimun V
  92. 1448 - 1490 Shimun VI
  93. 1491 - 1504 Elia V
  94. 1505 - 1538 Shimun VII
  95. 1538 - 1551 Eshuyow Shimun VIII
  96. 1552 - 1558 Dinkha Shimun IX (Bar Mama)
  97. 1558 - 1580 Yoalaha Shimun X
  98. 1580 - 1600 Dinkha Shimun XI
  99. 1600 - 1653 Elia Shimun XI
  100. 1653 - 1690 Eshuyow Shimun XIII
  101. 1690 - 1692 Yoalaha Shimun XIV
  102. 1692 - 1700 Dinkha Shimun XV
  103. 1700 - 1740 Shlemon (Sulaiman) shimun XVI
  104. 1740 - 1741 Mikhail (Muukhattis) Shimun XVII
  105. 1740 - 1820 Yonan (Yuna) Shimun XVIII
  106. 1820 - 1860 Oraham Shimun XIX
  107. 1860 - 1903 Ruwil Shimun XX
  108. 1903 - 1918 Binyamin Shimun XXI
  109. 1918 - 1920 Polos Shimun XXII
  110. 1920 - 1975 Eshai Shimun XXIII
  111. 1975 - current Dinkha IV
 
Continued…

Compare the above line with this line for the Syriac Orthodox Church Patriarch (one of the Patriarchs of Antioch):
  1. St. Peter 37
  2. Euodius 67
  3. Ignatius 68
  4. Heros 107
  5. Cornelius 127
  6. Heros II 154
  7. Theophilus 169
  8. Maximianus 182
  9. Serapion 191
  10. Asclipiades 211
  11. Philetus 220
  12. Zebinus 231
  13. Babylas 237
  14. Fabius 251
  15. Demetrianus 254
  16. Paul 260
  17. Domnus I 268
  18. Timaeus 273
  19. Cyril 283
  20. Arannus 304
  21. Vitalius 314
  22. Philogonius 320
  23. Paulinus 323
  24. Eustathius 324
  25. Meletius 360
  26. Flavian I 381
  27. Porphyrius 404
  28. Alexander 412
  29. Theodotus 417
  30. John I 428
  31. Domnus 442
  32. Maximus 449
  33. Peter II 468
  34. Palladius 488
  35. Flavian II 498
  36. Severus 512
  37. Sergius 544
  38. Paul II 550
  39. Peter III 581
  40. Julian I 591
  41. Athanasius 595
  42. John II 631
  43. Theodore 649
  44. Severus II 667
  45. Athanasius 683
  46. Julian 11 686
  47. Elias I 709
  48. Athanasius 724
  49. Iwannis I 740
  50. George I 758
  51. Joseph 790
  52. Kyriakos 793
  53. Dionysius 817
  54. John III 846
  55. Ignatius II 878
  56. Theodosius 887
  57. Dionysius 897
  58. John IV 910
  59. Basil I 923
  60. John V 936
  61. Iwannis II 954
  62. Dionysius III 958
  63. Abraham 962
  64. John VI 963
  65. Athanasius 986
  66. John VII 1004
  67. Dionysius 1034
  68. John VIII 1049
  69. Athanasius 1058
  70. John IX 1063
  71. Basil II 1074
  72. Dionysius V 1077
  73. Iwannis III 1080
  74. Dionysius VI 1088
  75. Athanasius 1091
  76. John X 1129
  77. Athanasius 1138
  78. Michael 1166
  79. Athanasius 1200
  80. John XI 1208
  81. Ignatius III 1222
  82. John XII 1263
  83. Ignatius IV 1264
  84. Philoxenus 1283
  85. Michael II 1292
  86. Michael 11 1312
  87. Basil HI 1387
  88. Philoxenus 1394
  89. Basil IV 1421
  90. Behnam 1445
  91. Khalaf 1455
  92. John XIII 1483
  93. Noah 1493
  94. Yeshue I 1509
  95. Jacob I 1512
  96. David I 1517
  97. Abdullah I 1520
  98. Ne’matallah 1557
  99. David II 1576
  100. Pilate 1591
  101. Hadayatallah 1597
  102. Simon 1640
  103. Yeshue II 1659
  104. Abdulmassih 1662
  105. George II 1687
  106. Isaac Azar 1709
  107. Shukrallah 1722
  108. George III 1745
  109. George IV 1768
  110. Matthew 1782
  111. Jonah 1817
  112. George V 1819
  113. Elias II 1838
  114. Jacob II 1847
  115. Peter IV 1872
  116. Abdulmassih 1895
  117. Abdullah II 1906
  118. Elias III 1917
  119. Ephrem I 1933
  120. Jacob III 1957
  121. Zakka I 1980 (current)
God bless,

Rony
 
rien said:
Don’t hold your breath. I think the TAC thing is going nowhere quickly. I still say they end up converting to Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
If they do not will that shake your confidence in your powers to predict the future? I won’t hold my breath.
 
small mistake.

For the Syriac Orthodox line, the present Patriarch is #122, not #121 as shown in the list above. The one missing from the list is:
  1. Martoros 459
The list at Syriac Orthodox Resources includes him.

I would have simply edited my post, but it seems that this board is setup to allow you to edit right away, but takes away the editing button after a while. This get annoying sometimes 😦

God bless,

Rony
P.S. Nevermind, ignore what I just wrote in this post, Martoros was a Chalcedonian, and so would not be considered part of the SO line. The “personal communication from Touma Issa” in the link in this post explains this.
 
rien said:
Don’t hold your breath. I think the TAC thing is going nowhere quickly. I still say they end up converting to Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
I simply don’t agree with this, and would be willing to discuss why not. Maybe we could start a thread in non-Catholic forum.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
I simply don’t agree with this, and would be willing to discuss why not. Maybe we could start a thread in non-Catholic forum.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of higher ups in the church don’t want this. Especially English Catholic bishops. These folks are too fundamnetalist or orthodox for the “establishment” Catholic church IMO…

But start a thread on that forum if you like.
 
Yet, perhaps some of the best place to get insight into the power of the argument of the mutual Orthodoxy of the Churches is in a series of publications from Pro Oriente. Unfortunately, I have NO idea where these books can be purchased, and would love to know if anyone else may know.
Click to expand...
Shlama Anthony,

Check this:

pro-oriente.at/?site=st20050118185248

God bless,

Rony
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top