Christology of the Church of the East

[Nine_Two]

This came up in a thread requesting that the term “Nestorian” be banned. I don’t want to derail that thread from its stated purpose. But I’ve always found the Christological position of the churches commonly called “Nestorian” to be quite confusing.

ronyodish:

Nestorian Christology is the confession of two Persons, two Sons, and two Subjects. Assyrian Christology confesses one Son, one Person, and one Subject.

A simplification of the Nestorian position, but it works well enough for our purposes. But the position you give as the Assyrian position, how would that differ from monophysitism or miaphysitism (I understand the distinction between these two positions, but your own description is a bit too vague to work out how it is distinguished from either one). If you hold to a miaphysite position what distinguishes you from the Oriental Orthodox? They seem uncomfortable with your Christology.

In the past, the term Nestorian was used to denigrate the Assyrians and count them among the heretics. Since the Common Christological Declaration, the Assyrian Christology has been clarified and found to be orthodox, at least among Catholics. Therefore, the term Nestorian should no longer be used towards the Assyrians, because the connotations associated with this term are no longer applicable.

As you say, that goes as far as Catholicism is concerned - and this is a Catholic forum so the point is quite a good one, I won’t argue against it, but I’m curious if this is the case why do the Assyrian Churches hold Nestorius, who is held as a heresiarch by the rest of Christianity, in such high esteem? If you’ve truly rejected the Christology he taught, why hold him in that position? This would be a bit like we Eastern Orthodox disagreed with the Christology of St. Basil the Great, or the Oriental Orthodox disagreed with the Christology of St. Athenasius. It doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[ronyodish]

This came up in a thread requesting that the term “Nestorian” be banned. I don’t want to derail that thread from its stated purpose. But I’ve always found the Christological position of the churches commonly called “Nestorian” to be quite confusing.

A simplification of the Nestorian position, but it works well enough for our purposes. But the position you give as the Assyrian position, how would that differ from monophysitism or miaphysitism (I understand the distinction between these two positions, but your own description is a bit too vague to work out how it is distinguished from either one). If you hold to a miaphysite position what distinguishes you from the Oriental Orthodox? They seem uncomfortable with your Christology.

I don’t hold to a miaphysite position. This is my position, the traditional Assyrian-Chaldean position:

The Lord Jesus Christ is one Parsupa, two Qnume, and two Kyane.

Parsupa is a Person (Lord Jesus Christ).
Qnuma is an individuated nature (Son, and a particular human body/soul)
Kyana is an abstract nature (Divinity, and humanity)

The Lord Jesus Christ is one Person, not two independent Persons co-existing with each other in a moral union.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the one Son of God the Father who has fashioned and assumed at conception a human soul directly created, and a human body created from the Virgin Mary, not two independent Sons co-existing with each other in a moral union. The Son, not the whole Trinity, assumed a particular human body and soul, not the bodies and souls of all mankind.

The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the one Subject of this body and soul, not two independent Subjects co-existing with each other in a moral union.

As far as how this position is distinguished from the Oriental Orthodox, the OO can speak for themselves.

As you say, that goes as far as Catholicism is concerned - and this is a Catholic forum so the point is quite a good one, I won’t argue against it, but I’m curious if this is the case why do the Assyrian Churches hold Nestorius, who is held as a heresiarch by the rest of Christianity, in such high esteem? If you’ve truly rejected the Christology he taught, why hold him in that position? This would be a bit like we Eastern Orthodox disagreed with the Christology of St. Basil the Great, or the Oriental Orthodox disagreed with the Christology of St. Athenasius. It doesn’t make sense to me.

The Assyrians admire Mar Nestorius as one of the three “Greek Doctors”, and do not consider him a Nestorian heretic. He is considered to have been misunderstood, or in other words, he is considered not to have taught the heresy named after him. Whether or not he was a Nestorian is a matter for scholars to debate. Regardless, the Christology of Nestorius is not the standard of Assyrian Christology, because Nestorius wrote in Greek, whereas, the Christology of the Assyrians is in Aramaic. The Christological Father of the Church of the East is Mar Babai the Great.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Nine_Two]

Could you give me a bit of clarification on how you are using the term “person”.

Obviously there is an issue of the language of the Church here (the bane of the Fathers). You seem to be using persons in your most recent post to mean a physical being, but earlier said the Nestorians believe in two persons, but my understanding is that what they believed in was a case of the human and divine natures existing distinctly within the physical person of Christ - and this is what I thought you were getting at when you said “two persons”.

I’m wondering if you might point me to a good resource that will give a bit fuller explanation of the concepts of Qnuma and Kyana. I think Kyana might be something akin to what we might call the “natures” of Christ. Perhaps you can confirm that, but Qnuma seems completely foreign to me.

If I’m correct about what Kyana is, then that would certainly mean that you hold to a dyophysite Christology (although that might be simplistic since I’ve ignored Qnuma). Then I suppose I have to ask how do the Kyana interact? The Orthodox formulation would be Fully Human, Fully Divine, two natures (Kyana?) in one person (parsupa?).

Another thing which distinguishes Nestorian doctrine from that of Orthodoxy is the question of when Jesus became divine. Do Assyrians believe that Mary gave birth to the divine Christ, or did he become divine after he was born?

Thank you for taking the time to answer me.

 

[ronyodish]

Could you give me a bit of clarification on how you are using the term “person”.

The Person is the self-standing individual known as the Lord Jesus Christ. This Person, this Jesus, is the Union of the Son of God and the human body and soul which the Son assumed at conception. This Union is not a moral union, meaning, the Son is not independently co-existing with an independent body/soul in a sort of communion between two individuals.

Obviously there is an issue of the language of the Church here (the bane of the Fathers). You seem to be using persons in your most recent post to mean a physical being, but earlier said the Nestorians believe in two persons, but my understanding is that what they believed in was a case of the human and divine natures existing distinctly within the physical person of Christ - and this is what I thought you were getting at when you said “two persons”.

The Nestorian heresy says that the Son, as one Person, independently or separately co-exists in a moral union with an independent or separated body/soul, that is, the other Person. Thus, we have two independent Persons in a sort of communion with each other.

I’m wondering if you might point me to a good resource that will give a bit fuller explanation of the concepts of Qnuma and Kyana. I think Kyana might be something akin to what we might call the “natures” of Christ. Perhaps you can confirm that, but Qnuma seems completely foreign to me.

As far as resources, there is not a whole lot in English, but you could look into some sites like the Assyrian site peshitta.org, or some books like “The Church of the East: Apostolic & Orthodox” by Bishop Mar Bawai Soro, or if you can somehow get a hold of an English translation of the “Book of Union” by our Christological Father of the Church, Mar Babai the Great, that would be going to the source of the matter.

The term Kyana is nature, but in the abstract or general sense. So, Christ possessed the general natures of Divinity and humanity, the two Kyane. However, the Church of the East is not satisfied with simply saying that Christ possessed Divinity and humanity as general concepts of nature, because the Father and the Holy Spirit also possess the Divine kyana, and Peter, Paul, and other humans also possess the human kyana. So, the Church of the East utilizes the term Qnuma to concretize or individuate the abstract of Kyana, and says that Christ was not just Divine, but that He is the Son, distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. Likewise, Christ is not just human, but that he possessed a particular body and soul which He fashioned and assumed at conception, distinct from the body/soul of Peter, and Paul, and any other human body/soul.

If I’m correct about what Kyana is, then that would certainly mean that you hold to a dyophysite Christology (although that might be simplistic since I’ve ignored Qnuma). Then I suppose I have to ask how do the Kyana interact? The Orthodox formulation would be Fully Human, Fully Divine, two natures (Kyana?) in one person (parsupa?).

The Assyrian formulation is that the Lord Jesus Christ is fully Divine (Kyana), fully the Son (Qnuma), fully human (Kyana), fully body/soul (Qnuma), in one Person. Two Kyane, Two Qnume, in one Parsupa.

Another thing which distinguishes Nestorian doctrine from that of Orthodoxy is the question of when Jesus became divine. Do Assyrians believe that Mary gave birth to the divine Christ, or did he become divine after he was born?

Thank you for taking the time to answer me.

The Virgin Mary gave birth to the Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. He was always Divine. He did not become Divine after birth, because that sounds like the adoptionist heresy. The Marian formulation that the Assyrians use is: Mother of Christ, our God and Savior. The Assyrians do not teach the following heresy: Mother of the man Christ who after birth became our God and Savior.

God bless,

Rony

 

[mardukm]

Great explanations, brother Rony!

Would you say that
(1) Nestorius misunderstood St. Cyri;
(2) St. Cyril misunderstood Nestorius;
(3) They both misunderstood each other?

Blessings

 

[Nine_Two]

Thank you for your answers Ronyodish.

I must certainly agree that the Assyrian theology does not sound at all Nestorian.

I’ve bookmarked the website you gave me, though I have a feeling those books might be a bit harder to find. It doesn’t seem that we have any Assyrian Churches (of any denomination) around here. Hopefully the university might help in that regard.

Part of my interest was a conversation I had with a well traveled Protestant professor of Church History who told me about his time in India, and about a conversation with a bishop of an apostolic church I can’t quite remember (one which had been in Communion with the Assyrians before the arrival of Europeans), but whom he said denied the idea that Christ was fully man and fully God. Obviously this was a second hand conversation and information can get mangled.

If I have more questions I hope you don’t mind if I ask you. I will be seeking out a good book on the subject.

 

[ronyodish]

Great explanations, brother Rony!

Would you say that
(1) Nestorius misunderstood St. Cyri;
(2) St. Cyril misunderstood Nestorius;
(3) They both misunderstood each other?

Blessings

Brother Marduk, I think they both misunderstood each other.

God bless,

Rony

 

[ronyodish]

Thank you for your answers Ronyodish.

I must certainly agree that the Assyrian theology does not sound at all Nestorian.

I’ve bookmarked the website you gave me, though I have a feeling those books might be a bit harder to find. It doesn’t seem that we have any Assyrian Churches (of any denomination) around here. Hopefully the university might help in that regard.

Part of my interest was a conversation I had with a well traveled Protestant professor of Church History who told me about his time in India, and about a conversation with a bishop of an apostolic church I can’t quite remember (one which had been in Communion with the Assyrians before the arrival of Europeans), but whom he said denied the idea that Christ was fully man and fully God. Obviously this was a second hand conversation and information can get mangled.

If I have more questions I hope you don’t mind if I ask you. I will be seeking out a good book on the subject.

That church in India could not have been a church of the Assyrian tradition, because the Assyrian tradition does teach that Christ is fully God and fully man.

You may ask me whatever question you like.

God bless,

Rony

 

[SyroMalankara]

Thank you for your answers Ronyodish.

I must certainly agree that the Assyrian theology does not sound at all Nestorian.

I’ve bookmarked the website you gave me, though I have a feeling those books might be a bit harder to find. It doesn’t seem that we have any Assyrian Churches (of any denomination) around here. Hopefully the university might help in that regard.

Part of my interest was a conversation I had with a well traveled Protestant professor of Church History who told me about his time in India, and about a conversation with a bishop of an apostolic church I can’t quite remember (one which had been in Communion with the Assyrians before the arrival of Europeans), but whom he said denied the idea that Christ was fully man and fully God. Obviously this was a second hand conversation and information can get mangled.

If I have more questions I hope you don’t mind if I ask you. I will be seeking out a good book on the subject.

The Church in India prior to 1599 was totally of the Church of the East (the Assyrian Church), this professor may have misunderstood the Bishop’s words. Many native Oriental Orthodox, Oriental Catholics, and Marthoma protestants use the Cyrilliac Miaphysite formula, while Church of South India (protestant Anglican) would generally use the diophysite form (although these days, it’s more probably more likely to be completely heretical like many protestant communities became), and Syro-Malabar (Catholics) could use the Assyrian or Latin formula; the Chaldean-Syrian Church of Trichur would use the Assyrian formula (Church of the East in India).

 

[Peter_J]

Nine_Two, it seems to me that your approach is a bit off. If anything, what’s curious about the ACoE is how very ecumenical they are, at least in one particular regard: they accept the use of “Nestorian” to refer to a heresy that (according to them) Nestorius never even believed. I don’t know of a single group that does anything comparable (it’s hard to imagine, for example, if the Lutherenas were to make a concession like “Lutherism is the heresy that ________ , which Martin Luther never taught.”).

 

[Nine_Two]

The Church in India prior to 1599 was totally of the Church of the East (the Assyrian Church), this professor may have misunderstood the Bishop’s words. Many native Oriental Orthodox, Oriental Catholics, and Marthoma protestants use the Cyrilliac Miaphysite formula, while Church of South India (protestant Anglican) would generally use the diophysite form (although these days, it’s more probably more likely to be completely heretical like many protestant communities became), and Syro-Malabar (Catholics) could use the Assyrian or Latin formula; the Chaldean-Syrian Church of Trichur would use the Assyrian formula (Church of the East in India).

Yes, it sounds like there was a misunderstanding there somewhere.
Peter J:

Nine_Two, it seems to me that your approach is a bit off. If anything, what’s curious about the ACoE is how very ecumenical they are, at least in one particular regard: they accept the use of “Nestorian” to refer to a heresy that (according to them) Nestorius never even believed. I don’t know of a single group that does anything comparable (it’s hard to imagine, for example, if the Lutherenas were to make a concession like “Lutherism is the heresy that ________ , which Martin Luther never taught.”).

True, but we seem to lack a better term to describe the heresy. I suppose we could use “extreme dyophysitism”.

Lutherans get quite upset if you conflate Luther with the later/crazier Protestants.

 

[Peter_J]

True, but we seem to lack a better term to describe the heresy.

Yes, it would seem so.

Note, of course, that I’m not necessarily saying that the ACoE are being too accommodating, only that they are being unusually accommodating.

 

[Aramis]

Yes, it sounds like there was a misunderstanding there somewhere.

True, but we seem to lack a better term to describe the heresy. I suppose we could use “extreme dyophysitism”.

That’s headache territory right there.

It’s one of those cases where the charitable thing is to point out that the split was mostly grounded in linguistic errors causing perception of heresies that, while real, weren’t held by the ones accused of them.

Lutherans get quite upset if you conflate Luther with the later/crazier Protestants.

Including, in many cases, the wrong subgroup of Lutherans.