UPDATE: Chaldean Patriarch and Unity with Assyrian Church of the East

  • Thread starter Thread starter shlomo3amrooh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please God, please let this be so! Answer our prayers! :crossrc:
 
:ehh: Las ultimas patadas de ahogado or something more substantial? Only time will tell. I do note that there is nothing in the quotes from Mar Dinkha IV that supports this idea that he or the ACoE view the talks as an effort toward full union, which is…interesting. I hope for both of your sakes that this will not end like the talks that the COC had with the ACoE back in the 1990s, which ended due to the different understandings between the two parties as to their purpose (the COC thought it was meeting to convince the ACoE to cease all veneration or teaching of the doctrines of Nestorius; I don’t know what exactly the ACoE thought they were doing there, but it is obvious from subsequent statements by their representatives that this goal was not on their minds).

Just the same, may a common love for the Lord and shared challenges in living out their respective faiths against great odds unite all the Christians of Iraq in further cooperation, for the good of all involved.
 
dzheremi said:
:ehh: Las ultimas patadas de ahogado or something more substantial? Only time will tell. I do note that there is nothing in the quotes from Mar Dinkha IV that supports this idea that he or the ACoE view the talks as an effort toward full union, which is…interesting. I hope for both of your sakes that this will not end like the talks that the COC had with the ACoE back in the 1990s, which ended due to the different understandings between the two parties as to their purpose (the COC thought it was meeting to convince the ACoE to cease all veneration or teaching of the doctrines of Nestorius; I don’t know what exactly the ACoE thought they were doing there, but it is obvious from subsequent statements by their representatives that this goal was not on their minds).

Just the same, may a common love for the Lord and shared challenges in living out their respective faiths against great odds unite all the Christians of Iraq in further cooperation, for the good of all involved.
Click to expand...
I am hoping that, in amongst all of the qualifiers and cautionary statements, there is a prayer for Christian unity.
 
This is without a doubt great news. As things go along, let us know to see how these dialogues go.
 
po18guy said:
Praise God! Lord, hear our prayer!
Click to expand...
Amen!
Ad_Orientem said:
Grant it, Lord! :gopray2:
Click to expand...
Amen!
thequietsinger said:
Please God, please let this be so! Answer our prayers! :crossrc:
Click to expand...
Amen!
dzheremi said:
:ehh: Las ultimas patadas de ahogado or something more substantial? Only time will tell. I do note that there is nothing in the quotes from Mar Dinkha IV that supports this idea that he or the ACoE view the talks as an effort toward full union, which is…interesting. I hope for both of your sakes that this will not end like the talks that the COC had with the ACoE back in the 1990s, which ended due to the different understandings between the two parties as to their purpose (the COC thought it was meeting to convince the ACoE to cease all veneration or teaching of the doctrines of Nestorius; I don’t know what exactly the ACoE thought they were doing there, but it is obvious from subsequent statements by their representatives that this goal was not on their minds).

Just the same, may a common love for the Lord and shared challenges in living out their respective faiths against great odds unite all the Christians of Iraq in further cooperation, for the good of all involved.
Click to expand...
Let us hope that it will go better than past acts of Ecumenicism.
Michael57 said:
Praying for unity of faith, full communion and fellowship…that they may be of one accord.

:crossrc:
Click to expand...
Thank you!
chero23 said:
This is without a doubt great news. As things go along, let us know to see how these dialogues go.
Click to expand...
Will do
 
frjohnmorris said:
I thought that they were already in communion with each other.

Archpriest John W. Morris
Click to expand...
There is an agreement of limited inter-communion for pastoral reasons - IE when the faithful of one Church do not have access to a minister of their own Church - but there is not yet full communion nor corporate unity. In practice this also happens, in places with Oriental and even Eastern Orthodox…(though obviously unofficially).
 
twf said:
There is an agreement of limited inter-communion for pastoral reasons - IE when the faithful of one Church do not have access to a minister of their own Church - but there is not yet full communion nor corporate unity. In practice this also happens, in places with Oriental and even Eastern Orthodox…(though obviously unofficially).
Click to expand...
It will be very interesting to see how the question of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorias are dealt with, since both have been condemned by Ecumenical Councils recognized by both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, but are considered saints by the Church of the East. It will also be interesting to see how the Roman Catholics deal with the problem that the Assyrian Liturgy of the Church of the East does not contain the Words of Institution in its Anaphora.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
frjohnmorris said:
It will also be interesting to see how the Roman Catholics deal with the problem that the Assyrian Liturgy of the Church of the East does not contain the Words of Institution in its Anaphora.
Click to expand...
That issue was pretty much settled back in 2001. See in particular section 3 here.
frjohnmorris said:
It will be very interesting to see how the question of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorias are dealt with, since both have been condemned by Ecumenical Councils recognized by both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, but are considered saints by the Church of the East.
Click to expand...
Whether either was truly a “Nestorian” is debatable, but I’ll leave the details to one of our Chaldean brethren. 🙂
 
malphono said:
That issue was pretty much settled back in 2001. See in particular section 3 here

Whether either was truly a “Nestorian” is debatable, but I’ll leave the details to one of our Chaldean brethren. 🙂
Click to expand...
Catholic theology seems inconsistent. When speaking with the Eastern Orthodox Church, we are told that the gifts are consecrated by the Words of Institution not the Epiklesis as we believe. However, when speaking with the Church of the East, Rome recognizes the validity of their liturgy although it does not contain the Institution Narrative.

I know that some modern historians argue that Nestorius was not a Nestorian. That is not surprising because Calvinism, one of the largest and influential movements adheres to a Nestorian like Christology. Most Protestants react with Romaphobia to the term Mother of God. Nestorius first caused controversy when he refused to call the Blessed Virgin Mary the Theotokos, Birth Giver or Mother of God. However, I believe that he was guilty of heresy, not only because the 3rd Ecumenical Council condemned him for teaching heresy, but also because we have two independent contemporary opinions that his teaching was heretical. Both St. Cyril of Alexandria in the East and St. John Cassian in the West examined his writings and sermons and agreed that the theology of the theology of Nestorius is that Christ was an inspired man. Thus we have two independent evaluations of Nestorius that agree that his teachings were heretical.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
frjohnmorris said:
Catholic theology seems inconsistent. When speaking with the Eastern Orthodox Church, we are told that the gifts are consecrated by the Words of Institution not the Epiklesis as we believe. However, when speaking with the Church of the East, Rome recognizes the validity of their liturgy although it does not contain the Institution Narrative.

I know that some modern historians argue that Nestorius was not a Nestorian. That is not surprising because Calvinism, one of the largest and influential movements adheres to a Nestorian like Christology. Most Protestants react with Romaphobia to the term Mother of God. Nestorius first caused controversy when he refused to call the Blessed Virgin Mary the Theotokos, Birth Giver or Mother of God. However, I believe that he was guilty of heresy, not only because the 3rd Ecumenical Council condemned him for teaching heresy, but also because we have two independent contemporary opinions that his teaching was heretical. Both St. Cyril of Alexandria in the East and St. John Cassian in the West examined his writings and sermons and agreed that the theology of the theology of Nestorius is that Christ was an inspired man. Thus we have two independent evaluations of Nestorius that agree that his teachings were heretical.

Archpriest John W. Morris
Click to expand...
Father,
I am not a theologian and I must stipulate that my response is nothing more than my personal opinion. The Council of Trent infallibly defined, for Catholics, that the words of institution make present the body and blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This cannot be denied and it is clear in both our theology and our liturgy that the moment of consecration happens at this particular moment in the Latin rites. That being said, the Church has never formally defined that it is impossible for the consecration to happen at a different moment and it would appear that in the case of the East Syriac liturgy Rome is open to that possibility. I think it simply illustrates my belief that Catholic theology is more mystical and less bound to scholastic definitions than its critics claim. As I’ve said before, there is more than one school of theology within the Latin Church and always has been. Often the Truth is more nuanced than we would sometimes like to think. Protestants think in terms of simple black and white yes or no…Catholics and Orthodox Christians recognize that God’s mysteries are infinitely deep and rich. Is salvation by faith or by works? Protestants answer faith. Catholics, and I think the Orthodox, answer both. Did Christ physically leave this earth? Protestants answer yes. Catholics answer yes as well but also maintain that He is physically present on every altar.

EDIT: I should add that if you read the decision from Rome, it does not state that the words of institution are optional or unnecessary, but rules that in this case they are implicitly found in such a way that the consecration still occurs - but who knows at which moment?
Take the sacrament of penance. In the Latin rites, the words “ego te absolvo” (I absolve you) are necessary for a valid absolution to occur. These words aren’t found in most of the Eastern / Oriental traditions but their absolutions are still considered valid. I think we need to consider the possibility that the Holy Spirit works through the different traditions of the West and East. The means in which a sacrament occurs may vary.
 
frjohnmorris said:
Catholic theology seems inconsistent. When speaking with the Eastern Orthodox Church, we are told that the gifts are consecrated by the Words of Institution not the Epiklesis as we believe. However, when speaking with the Church of the East, Rome recognizes the validity of their liturgy although it does not contain the Institution Narrative.
Click to expand...
I’d be curious to see where Rome suggested that the Epiklesis is not of a consecratory nature. :confused: Now, if what you’re suggesting is that it is the Epiklesis and only Epiklesis that is consecratory, it seems to me the EO would be as guilty of “magic words syndrome” as the Latins. If so, it would be something that in all my many years, I have never before heard, much less considered.

In the Syriac Churches, as I’ve said before in this forum, we hold the Anaphora as a unit. If one insists delineation, the bare consecratory minimum is the Preface (to the Father), the Institution (to the Son), and the Epiklesis (to the Holy Ghost). But it is precisely in taking the Anaphora as whole that even Rome finds no argument with the consecratory nature of the ACoE recension of Addai & Mari, since the Institution Narrative is considered to be implicit therein.
frjohnmorris said:
I know that some modern historians argue that Nestorius was not a Nestorian. …
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, I’m leaving that part for one of our Chaldean brethren. 🙂
 
Lord please help us unify together as one for you in your Church.
:signofcross::byzsoc::crossrc::highprayer::gopray2::harp::byzsoc::signofcross:
 
twf said:
Father,
I am not a theologian and I must stipulate that my response is nothing more than my personal opinion. The Council of Trent infallibly defined, for Catholics, that the words of institution make present the body and blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This cannot be denied and it is clear in both our theology and our liturgy that the moment of consecration happens at this particular moment in the Latin rites. That being said, the Church has never formally defined that it is impossible for the consecration to happen at a different moment and it would appear that in the case of the East Syriac liturgy Rome is open to that possibility. I think it simply illustrates my belief that Catholic theology is more mystical and less bound to scholastic definitions than its critics claim. As I’ve said before, there is more than one school of theology within the Latin Church and always has been. Often the Truth is more nuanced than we would sometimes like to think. Protestants think in terms of simple black and white yes or no…Catholics and Orthodox Christians recognize that God’s mysteries are infinitely deep and rich. Is salvation by faith or by works? Protestants answer faith. Catholics, and I think the Orthodox, answer both. Did Christ physically leave this earth? Protestants answer yes. Catholics answer yes as well but also maintain that He is physically present on every altar.

EDIT: I should add that if you read the decision from Rome, it does not state that the words of institution are optional or unnecessary, but rules that in this case they are implicitly found in such a way that the consecration still occurs - but who knows at which moment?
Take the sacrament of penance. In the Latin rites, the words “ego te absolvo” (I absolve you) are necessary for a valid absolution to occur. These words aren’t found in most of the Eastern / Oriental traditions but their absolutions are still considered valid. I think we need to consider the possibility that the Holy Spirit works through the different traditions of the West and East. The means in which a sacrament occurs may vary.
Click to expand...
Thank your for your clarification. I am not aware of any Eastern Orthodox studies on the anaphora of the Church of the East, so am just making an educated guess. I would assume that without both the words of Institution an Epiklesis that an anphora would be defective, but as I wrote, I am an historian not a theologian. The matter will have to be decided by historians. Therefore, I am just expressing an opinion, not the position of my Church, because I am not aware that an official position has been taken on this issue. I could very well be wrong.

Archpriest John Morris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top