Questions about Iraqi Catholicism

[dzheremi]

I have been reading a bit recently about the history and present forms of Assyrian Christianity at the behest of an Orthodox friend of mine from Iraq. One of the authors I have read (please forgive me for forgetting his name at the moment) seems very insistent that the Catholic Church has greatly insulted its Iraqi adherents by naming them “Chaldean” when they are in fact converted former Orthodox Assyrians, with no real link to ancient Chaldean people. The Chaldeans, according to this author, actually fought alongside the Persians against the Assyrians.

I had previously assumed that “Chaldean” was just used by outsiders to distinguish the Iraqi Catholics from their Eastern Orthodox bretheren, and that the two are ethno-linguistically and culturally otherwise part of the same group: The Assyrians. Don’t all Christians of Assyrian origin (Syriac/Aramaean) refer to themselves as “Suryoyo” anyway? Does Rome refering to them as “Chaldean” carry any pejorative connotation? This author, it should be noted, was very much anti-Catholic, and used very strong words to write against what he sees as Roman division of his community.

It is not that I cannot understand at least some of this frustration. I know from talking with local Iraqi Christians that there is big concern over Latinizations…I really hope they aren’t pursued, or, if they already have a big impact on the community, that they are dumped in favor of more natural expressions of the faith.

Anyway, any clarification on this naming issue is much appreciated!

 

[malphono]

I’m not an expert on internal communal matters among the Assyrian peoples, so at this point I will only make the following brief comments.

… Don’t all Christians of Assyrian origin (Syriac/Aramaean) refer to themselves as “Suryoyo” anyway?

Not exactly. There are two major dialects of Aramaic: western (meaning from west of the old Roman-Persian imperial boundary, and eastern (meaning from east of the old Roman-Persian imperial boundary). The word suryoyo is a West Syriac word, while the equivalent in East Syriac is athouraya which derives from “Athur” (or “Ashur”) from which we get the word “Assyrian” itself. Coming down to the bottom line, suryoyo and athuraya are really the same language, albeit in two rather different dialects.

Briefly, the Syriac Church developed on the western side of the boundary, is headed (technically, at least) in Antioch, and (along with the Maronites) uses the West Syriac liturgical tradition, dialect, and script. The Assyrian Church of the East was on the eastern side of the boundary, was headed in Selucia-Ctesiphon, and (along with the Chaldean Church), uses the East Syriac liturgical tradition, dialect, and script. As one might expect, theologically the Eastern and Western Syriac traditions have a great many things in common, since both have roots in the School of Edessa. The liturgical traditions which derive therefrom, though, are structurally quite different.

Does Rome refering to them as “Chaldean” carry any pejorative connotation? This author, it should be noted, was very much anti-Catholic, and used very strong words to write against what he sees as Roman division of his community.

I doubt that the term “Chaldean” was ever meant as a pejorative. Rather, I suspect that it was used simply to differentiate, since the term “Chaldee” was often used among scripture scholars as a synonym for Aramaic.

For example, in the 16th century, the Maronite Missal was first printed in Rome, redacted from various manuscripts, and had two title pages: the one in Latin reads: “Missale Chaldaicum iuxta ritum Ecclesiae nationis Maronitarum” where the word “Chaldean” seems to be merely a synonym for Syriac. (The Syriac title page is quite interesting as well, but shows no mention of language: it was simply understood to be suryoyo. Subsequent printings of the Maronite Missal dropped the reference to Chaldee.)

 

[dzheremi]

Thanks for the clarifications, Malphono. I should have checked about the different words for “Assyrian” in both dialects…it’s not very hard to find out.

 

[antgaria]

Dear dzheremi,

Malphono has somewhat elaborated a bit upon the difference between Suryoyo and Easterners, but there is one correction to be made. In the Mid East, traditionally, we said one was “Suraya” which is how we called ourselves rather than the “athuraya” designation, which is of more recent usage.

I don’t want to get into the same old argument about names that is often seen taking place within the Church of the East adherents. There is much literature about Assyrian or Chaldean. There is much evidence of the Chaldean name being used as an ethnic designation even before the union with Rome… AND much evidence of Chaldean being used as an ethnic designation even among the “Assyrian” Church {eg. Patriarchal and other Episcopal titles/seals}. I think the Assyrian name issue became a focal point for “ultra-nationalists” and the church hierarchs that tried to appeal to this ultra-nationalism to attract members.

My personal view? I love the way my bishop, Mar Sarhad, stated it: “why should I want to claim only one as my heritage? We will claim both, Babylon and Nineveh as ours.” That is enough said about that, and about all I will say about that. I don’t like playing the name-game.

The Chaldeans, according to this author, actually fought alongside the Persians against the Assyrians.

The Assyrian and Babylonians had always been fighting each other. One theory of the sudden withdrawal of Sennacherib’s army from Jerusalem is that it was necessary to fight the Babylonian uprising which took place historically about the same time, and a rebellion in Babylon was much more important to face than the problems in Judea which was at the outskirts of the Assyrian Empire.

Yet, the issue is that after the fall of both the Assyrian and the Neo-Babylonian Empires, there were no more Semitic Empires at that level. The Semitic people under the Persian, and later the Muslim, dominion were identified by 1- their language and cultural background and eventually 2- their Christian identity, which also ensured their language/cultural identity. So Chaldean or Assyrian, we claim them both. The ultra-nationalistic authors that are anti-Chaldean will usually, very hypocritically, claim the accomplishments of the Babylonian and Chaldean peoples for their own.

Coolies… now I will break this post up into two pieces… the second will be about the religious points in your question…

 

[antgaria]

From a religious point, there needs to be some correction to your statements. The “Assyrian” CotE is not “Eastern Orthodox.” The Eastern Orthodox churches will cringe at hearing these people who they believe to be Nestorian heretics listed as part of their communion. The Syriac Church itself is not part of the Eastern Orthodox communion either, but rather is in the Oriental Orthodox communion. Until recent talks, it was common to call the Assyrians “Nestorians” and the Western Syriac “Jacobites,” but both terms are now unpopular, and with recent scholarship it seems that neither held the heresy of which they were accused.

Until recently, I was a member of the Assyrian church, but having been reconciled to Catholic faith, together with my parish and diocese, I am now a member within the Chaldean Church. As a member of the Assyrian one, I was quite aware of the fact that we were in fact out of communion with every other apostolic church. The question from people “are you Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?” elicited an introduction to what could be a long answer: “well… that’s kinda difficult to explain, do you have time?” Yet, as one can see from the many posts on this subject, the faith of the CotE was always orthodox {as opposed to heterodox}, and its ecclesiology always in line with the Catholic Church.

With our apostolic faith {do a search through the archived logs}, and the signing of the CCD, the only factors that could be keeping us out of communion were odd things here and there that needed to be worked out. When we were in effect kicked out of the church, it was liberating in that we would not need to work out ALL of the things that stood in the way of union. I grant there were some stuff that would have been nice to work out before re-union, like the place and role of the Melka, but, it was more stubbornness and fear of change and personal reasons why the union was not coming together.

In Christ,
Anthony

 

[dzheremi]

From a religious point, there needs to be some correction to your statements. The “Assyrian” CotE is not “Eastern Orthodox.”

I’m sorry. This was a typo on my part that I did not catch until re-reading my original post just now, trying to figure out where I suggested that any of the groups in question were Eastern Orthodox. I meant to write “Oriental Orthodox”. I do know the difference between the two, as I have many friends of both traditions. Apologies for my carelessness.

 

[antgaria]

Dear dzheremi,

No problem. I was just trying to clarify that bit. I hope what I said helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

in Him,
Anthony

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, it is very helpful. I was just curious about this issue, because the excerpt I read from the book recommended to me by my friend was the first time I had read that “Chaldean” might be offensive.

 

[malphono]

… In the Mid East, traditionally, we said one was “Suraya” …

Strictly for my own edification and to satisfy my abundant curiosity, can you tell me if the first letter in Syriac is semkath or is it the alef-taw (alap-taw) combination?

 

[antgaria]

Dear Malphono,

With a semkath. It is pretty much the same thing as suryoyo, except I think we dropped the first yut, and ofcourse we pronounce with an “a” sound what you pronounce with an “o” one. For example, we say malpana in the eastern dialect. We don’t soften our Pe’s as much either.

In Him,
Anthony

 

[antgaria]

Looking it up in the Payne Smith Syriac dictionary, see here, I see that it says that suraya is “an unusual spelling” of suryaya.

 

[malphono]

Dear Malphono,

With a semkath. It is pretty much the same thing as suryoyo, except I think we dropped the first yut, and ofcourse we pronounce with an “a” sound what you pronounce with an “o” one. For example, we say malpana in the eastern dialect. We don’t soften our Pe’s as much either.

In Him,
Anthony

Thank you for the clarification on the spelling. You of course know why I asked: that nasty little habit that exists all over the Middle East (including in Hebrew and Arabic) where sometimes a softened taw is pronounced as semkath but is normally written correctly.

The case at hand is very interesting since if one takes the word athuraya and does the “job” on the alap-taw (yes, indeed, I know all about the “pe” and the zqapha in the eastern dialect although I sometimes make a mistake despite listening to a good bit of Janan Sawa and Juliana ) combination, what does one get? suraya and without dropping a yodh. It may not mean anything, but I find it curious nonetheless.

Anyway, again, with my thanks … shlama ou shaina