That their Chaldean Catholic descendents have an extremely limited (and chiefly recent) usage of iconography - and more so of statuary - is a result of latinizing influences on their Church.
Although latinization has taken place, I think it has to do more with the fact that our Chaldean Church recognizes the place of images within a church, and yet does not have an uninterrupted tradition of iconography as other Churches do. We reestablish the ancient practice by looking at how our neighbors do things.
One example, the icon of Christ’s glorious humanity that is supposed to be on the altar… what does that look like since we don’t have surviving examples?
Do the Assyrians (and Chaldean Catholics) recognize the same seven sacraments as the rest of the Church?
Currently, the Assyrian church does not list the same seven sacraments as the Catholic Church does. The Chaldean Church lists the same seven.
The issue is in that the differentiation between Sacraments and Sacramentals developed in the West and had no equivalent development in the Church of the East where Raza has a meaning not quite equal to Sacrament. And yet, with the number seven being ascribed to the Sacraments, the Church of the East also sought to have SEVEN Sacraments. The list followed by the Assyrian Church is from Mar Abdisho’s book “The Pearl”, but we have other lists like that of Patriarch Timothy II {around the same time, a little later} who had a different seven.
I think the Assyrian and the Catholic church were so close to coming to agreement on the list of Sacraments. During the Pro-Oriente non-official dialogues, many of the issues on the Sacraments were hammered out to the point where I believe an agreement could easily have been signed.
One difference is that marriage is not listed in the Assyrian church, and yet it was in Timothy’s list, and even Abdisho thought so highly of it that he included it in his discussion of Sacraments. The number seven and the lack of developed definition of Sacrament played a big role. He needed seven and so marriage was just outside.
However, if one looks at it more closely, the Sign of the Cross would not really fit into the definition of Sacrament as the Catholic Church has defined it. It is really more than a sacrament in that it is as my bishop, Mar Sarhad, told me, “really the sacrament of the Sacraments.” In fact, Mar Abdisho does not actually say much about the Sign of the Cross other than to state:
The Sign of the life-giving Cross is that by which Christians are ever kept, and by it all the other Sacraments are sealed and perfected.
The “Sacraments” in there should really read “mysteries” as it does not only include those listed. As I understand it, this coincides with the view of the Maronites as well.
Similarly, Holy Melkha, other than as a way of emphasizing the venerable tradition, does not really need to be considered as one of the Seven Sacraments.
Greetings.
