Assyrians Elect To Enter Into Full Communion W/ Catholic Church

[East_and_West]

cired.org/faith.html

As far as holding that Mary is Theotokos, I read at one time that this Church was not in attendance at the Council of Chalcedon where that declaration was made, so no, it is not a part of thier theological makeup. This is not to say that they do not have a rich Marian tradition.

They do recite the Nicaean Creed.

cired.org/aceov.html

Sub

I understand that, but to deny that Mary is the Theotokos is a grave theological error. It has the most dangerous of consequences with regard to Christology. I can’t quite understand how one can even be a Christian without accepting the theology of Ephesus.

 

[ronyodish]

What is the Christology of this group? Do they accept the title of the Theotokos for the Virgin Mary?

I understand that, but to deny that Mary is the Theotokos is a grave theological error. It has the most dangerous of consequences with regard to Christology. I can’t quite understand how one can even be a Christian without accepting the theology of Ephesus.

East and West,

Read here:

---

Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East

Christ therefore is not an " ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour”. In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of God” and also as “the Mother of Christ”. We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.​

God bless,

Rony

 

[antgaria]

Dear all,

Rony, thank you for the welcome. The book you mentioned is a great one, I especially recommend the part in defense of the Orthodoxy of our theology, which has for long been considered “nestorian”.

East and West, in regards to the Theotokos, we have maintained the validity of calling her Theotokos { yema d’alaha } despite our insistance in using the term Christotokos { yema d’mshihha }. Even in the writings of our fathers you will find confession to the validity of the term when understood as a type of communicatio idiomatum.

That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour”. In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of God” and also as “the Mother of Christ”. We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.

For the full text of the Common Christological Declaration between the Assyrian CotE and the Holy See, please see:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html

JMBNH, you asked about the Old Testament. I believe that we do have the same Syriac tradition in terms of Old Testament Canon.

In Christ,
Anthony

 

[jimmy]

I understand that, but to deny that Mary is the Theotokos is a grave theological error. It has the most dangerous of consequences with regard to Christology. I can’t quite understand how one can even be a Christian without accepting the theology of Ephesus.

The problem is that there were a lot of political problems at the time of Ephesus. There were problems between the Persian epmire and the Roman empire. Those who rejected Ephesus were largely from the Persian empire. They do not reject the fact that Christ was God and that Mary gave birth to Him. But they will never accept the council because accepting it would also involve anathematizing themselves and their own history.

ronyodish:

East and West,

Read here:

---

Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East

Christ therefore is not an " ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour”. In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of God” and also as “the Mother of Christ”. We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.​

God bless,

Rony

Rony, what’s up? It’s been a while.

 

[ronyodish]

Rony, what’s up? It’s been a while.

Hey Jimmy, nothing much other than school. I’m actually already falling behind on some of my readings but God willing, I’ll catch up. So far my class on the Dead Sea Scrolls has been quiet interesting.

How’s it going with you?

God bless,

Rony

 

[bpbasilphx]

What is the Christology of this group? Do they accept the title of the Theotokos for the Virgin Mary?

It is true that the essence of the Nestorian heresy was to deny “Theotokos.”

However, in the Delcaration of Common Christology signed by Mar Dinkha (the Assyrian Patriarch) and his Synod and Pope John Paul II, it says that the Western term “Mother of God” and their preferred term “Mother of Christ our God” express the same mystery.

cired.org/cat/declaration.html

Furthermore in the 7th century or so, one of their doctors wrote this, which sounds like the Definition of Chalcedon to me:

+++++++

One is Christ the Son of God,
Worshiped by all in two natures;
In His Godhead begotten of the Father,
Without beginning before all time;
In His humanity born of Mary,
In the fullness of time, in a body united;
Neither His Godhead is of the nature of the mother,
Nor His humanity of the nature of the Father;
The natures are preserved in their Qnumas*,
In one person of one Sonship.
And as the Godhead is three substances in one nature,
Likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one person.

 

[assyrian73]

Hi to all of you:
I have read all your posts from the time this post come into this forum, and unfortunately none of you is responding according to the Christian Manner, you are just dealing with this issue as a great “Victory” for having some people coming into full-Communion with RCC. However some of you are completely out of track and lack of Assyrian Church of the East History and Theology, I do not know if that is by Intend or not, but one or two like ronyodish and Anthony, it seems they are from Assyrian Community they have some Infos about this CASE, but they are not giving the whole TRUTH. So, the case behind this “Movement” of Bawai Soro, is motivated politically I mean politically that one or two Parties have link with this movement along side with Mar Sarhad Jammo Bishop of Chaldean Church and some Bishops of Ancient Church of the East. Therefore, you have to have acknowledgement about these issues before you enjoying that one Defrocked Bishop and three priests defrocked as well by the Holy Synod of ACOE have will to come into full-Communion with RCC. This Movement never was about “UNITY” with RCC, it just started with problem of Name that each Party along with Churches of East Claiming his proposal is better than others, like Chaldean prefer CHALDEAN Name along side with their Political Parties, Assyrian Church with the Majority Preferring ASSYRIAN name, and all this happened after the falling of Saddam, that every Nation in Iraq has own rights and Name, they are not Arabs as whole nor Kurds, but each of them is Different. Our Nation Historically has one Name Assyrian, but Chaldean church community refuses to use ASSYRIAN Name as well as SYRIAN Orthodox and Catholic Community. In 2004 this movement started with Mr. Bawai Soro and Mar Sarhad Jammo to find out a solution for this Dilemma, however for Assyrian Church Followers. It was not any Problem with using ASSYRIAN name as a National Name for gaining our Rights in our Assyria Homeland. So gradually this movement was taking another path towards Religion and Theology issues, as Mr. Bawai the Defrocked Bishop start talking about UNITY, REFORM, and ACCOUNTABILITY, but the fact is ACOE was in Unity with Chaldean Church and RCC before he started his false allegations, ACOE have reformed in all aspect of Church Life, just like having Students studying in ROME and Students in Babel College in Baghdad along side with Chaldean Church, our Church start having Dialogues with most Churches, ACOE Signed Christological Agreement with RCC, so what kind of Reform Mr. Bawai was asking the SEE of Saliq-Oqtesphon H.H Mae Dinkha IV?

 

[East_and_West]

East and West,

Read here:

---

Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East

Christ therefore is not an " ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour”. In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of God” and also as “the Mother of Christ”. We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.​

God bless,

Rony

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?

 

[East_and_West]

Dear all,

Rony, thank you for the welcome. The book you mentioned is a great one, I especially recommend the part in defense of the Orthodoxy of our theology, which has for long been considered “nestorian”.

East and West, in regards to the Theotokos, we have maintained the validity of calling her Theotokos { yema d’alaha } despite our insistance in using the term Christotokos { yema d’mshihha }. Even in the writings of our fathers you will find confession to the validity of the term when understood as a type of communicatio idiomatum.

For the full text of the Common Christological Declaration between the Assyrian CotE and the Holy See, please see:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html

JMBNH, you asked about the Old Testament. I believe that we do have the same Syriac tradition in terms of Old Testament Canon.

In Christ,
Anthony

Thank you so much for sharing this.

 

[East_and_West]

Hi to all of you:
I have read all your posts from the time this post come into this forum, and unfortunately none of you is responding according to the Christian Manner, you are just dealing with this issue as a great “Victory” for having some people coming into full-Communion with RCC. However some of you are completely out of track and lack of Assyrian Church of the East History and Theology, I do not know if that is by Intend or not, but one or two like ronyodish and Anthony, it seems they are from Assyrian Community they have some Infos about this CASE, but they are not giving the whole TRUTH. So, the case behind this “Movement” of Bawai Soro, is motivated politically I mean politically that one or two Parties have link with this movement along side with Mar Sarhad Jammo Bishop of Chaldean Church and some Bishops of Ancient Church of the East. Therefore, you have to have acknowledgement about these issues before you enjoying that one Defrocked Bishop and three priests defrocked as well by the Holy Synod of ACOE have will to come into full-Communion with RCC. This Movement never was about “UNITY” with RCC, it just started with problem of Name that each Party along with Churches of East Claiming his proposal is better than others, like Chaldean prefer CHALDEAN Name along side with their Political Parties, Assyrian Church with the Majority Preferring ASSYRIAN name, and all this happened after the falling of Saddam, that every Nation in Iraq has own rights and Name, they are not Arabs as whole nor Kurds, but each of them is Different. Our Nation Historically has one Name Assyrian, but Chaldean church community refuses to use ASSYRIAN Name as well as SYRIAN Orthodox and Catholic Community. In 2004 this movement started with Mr. Bawai Soro and Mar Sarhad Jammo to find out a solution for this Dilemma, however for Assyrian Church Followers. It was not any Problem with using ASSYRIAN name as a National Name for gaining our Rights in our Assyria Homeland. So gradually this movement was taking another path towards Religion and Theology issues, as Mr. Bawai the Defrocked Bishop start talking about UNITY, REFORM, and ACCOUNTABILITY, but the fact is ACOE was in Unity with Chaldean Church and RCC before he started his false allegations, ACOE have reformed in all aspect of Church Life, just like having Students studying in ROME and Students in Babel College in Baghdad along side with Chaldean Church, our Church start having Dialogues with most Churches, ACOE Signed Christological Agreement with RCC, so what kind of Reform Mr. Bawai was asking the SEE of Saliq-Oqtesphon H.H Mae Dinkha IV?

I figured that the situation was more complicated than it appeared.

 

[East_and_West]

Does anyone know how the OO and EO Churches feel about the ACoE?

 

[fin]

the Assyrians aren’t classified as Orthodox, are they?

 

[ronyodish]

assyrian73,

Welcome to the forum

I am a member of the Chaldean Catholic Church of the East, and my bishop is Mar Sarhad Yawsip Jammo. I support my bishop during this current situation of tension between the Chaldean Church of the East and Assyrian Church of the East.

I’m not the most qualified person to speak on behalf of Mar Bawai Soro, and Anthony is much more qualified than I am to do so. I do support the decision of Mar Bawai and his people to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church, and resume Church unity with the Chaldean Catholic Church of the East.

Historically, our common Church, was known as the Church of the East. It was not called Assyrian Church or Chaldean Church, but simply the Church of the East. Your Assyrian Church in India is known as the Chaldean Syrian Church. A few of our Chaldean Catholic parishes have both Chaldean and Assyrian in the name of the parish. I think that in a future full ecclesial communion between us, it is more important that we be known as the Church of the East first, and then secondarily as Assyrian and/or Chaldean.

When we stand in judgment before Our Lord Jesus Christ, He will not ask us why we called ourselves Chaldean or Assyrian. The Bible says that we will be judged in accordance to what we do, or not do, to the least of the brethren (See Mattai 25:40,45).

These arguments over ethnicity and naming is poisonous to the charity of the soul. We are to be Christians to one another, loving each other no matter what we have historically chosen to call ourselves. Our primary focus is all on Jesus our Lord, and to serve His Body, the Holy Church. The Holy Church, the very Holy Body of Our Lord was NEVER intended to be fractured into wounded body parts. We are ALL called to be as One in Jesus Christ.

Our Churches are now going through a problematic phase in the dialogue. I hope and pray that we can resume dialogue with each other, and continue towards the path of a future full ecclesial communion of peace and charity.

Anyways, welcome aboard. By the way, it helps if you can break down your paragraphs for easier reading.

Maran Ysho’ Msheekha bless you and keep you!

Rony

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Does anyone know how the OO and EO Churches feel about the ACoE?

The Coptic Orthodox legates to the Middles Eastern Council of Churches, alongside some other reps, vigoursly opposed ACoE membership in the MECC on the grounds they did not want “Nestorians” involved.

I am not well familiar with any movements on the part of Eastern or Oriental Orthodox to dialogue with the ACoE in the manner that ACoE & Rome have commenced. My lack of familiarity is, however, just that MY lack of familiarity. It could be efforts have been made that I simply don’t know about.

 

[jj2011]

the Assyrians aren’t classified as Orthodox, are they?

They cannot be Orthodox if they don’t accept the third ecumenical council or venerate the Theotokos.

 

[Woodstock]

They cannot be Orthodox if they don’t accept the third ecumenical council or venerate the Theotokos.

They are oftentimes grouped into the Oriental Orthodox camp, but the Assyrian Church of the East broke unity before the Oriental Orthodox did and are not in communion with the Oriental Orthodox.

 

[Aramis]

The Churches of the East, so called “Nestorians”, are the “Fourth” of the “Four Great Communions” within the Apostolic Tradtions.

The other three are the Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Hesychios]

They are oftentimes grouped into the Oriental Orthodox camp, but the Assyrian Church of the East broke unity before the Oriental Orthodox did and are not in communion with the Oriental Orthodox.

On the other hand, it might well be said that we all broke unity with them!

In any case, according to the history of the Christological disputes of the past the non-Chalcedonians and the Church of the East would theoretically represent the most extreme opposite viewpoints (if we were to assume that they were not all just finding different ways to express the same theology).

That would leave the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics together between them.

Today the tendency is to assume that those old disputes were all a big mistake and we all meant the same things all along. I don’t really know what to make of that.

 

[Hesychios]

The Churches of the East, so called “Nestorians”, are the “Fourth” of the “Four Great Communions” within the Apostolic Tradtions.

The other three are the Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox.

On the other hand, they may be the “First” of four.

 

[antgaria]

Dear All,

In regards to the Orthodoxy of the CotE, our brother Rony mentioned my bishop’s book which makes a strong argument towards what is meant by our Church fathers. 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.

It is a long debate, and it centers around the understanding of “qnuma” in our tradition, which ironically has a very different meaning… There’s much been written, and I would not even like to take a try at simplifying it other than to point out Mar Bawai’s book, and if someone knows where we can obtain more copies of the Pro Oriente series… I do not want to lose my copy of the series as they are right now too unreplaceable.

I believe the quote that bpbasilphx listed from one of our saints is actually from Mar Bawai the Great who was in the late 6th century. I am currently taking a break at work, so I cannot verify, but if memory serves correctly, that is where the quote is from. So one can see that our understanding of Christology was quite Orthodox.

The only subject that I can think is in the air is that we venerate Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorus as saints and would like a rehabitulation of those persons into the Church… a lifting of the anathema given recent scholarship and our Church’s understanding of their words to fit with our tradition. That in itself is not a major stumbling block, as the beliefs of those fathers are being researched not just by people within the CotE, but also within the Catholic Church and elsewhere.

In regards to acceptance of councils. I think in the end, any CotE member, educated in their own Tradition and the teachings of their own Church, will not be able to disagree with the doctrinal teachings regarding the nature of Christ, soteriology, and theosis.
I think only disciplinary issues, and issues that can be amended remain. Even in regards to icons – many accuse our Church to be iconoclastic – our Church had a tradition and defended the use of them, and only through oppression and suppression did we start losing them {I think mainly dating to a 14th century persecution and destruction of our churches and killing of our teachers}. It was a pragmatic issue and our Church retains icons even in our liturgy.

Ofcourse, I have not been involved in high up talks, and I only get my information from books, and lectures and what have you when I can… but on a personal level, I can say that my commitment to the CotE came only after I was re-assured that the Apostolic Tradition of the CotE can be reconciled with the teachings of the 7 “Ecumenical Councils” that even the Eastern Orthodox Churches acknowledge.

For those who might ask me “what about other Councils?”… I can only say “baby steps, baby steps”… at the time, I was thinking, we have to allow ourselves to get through atleast this step before going on.

In Christ,
Anthony