11-27-2007, 04:52 AM
Slama amkhon
Something that has bothered me lately is why is COE and the Eastern Orthodox are still out of communion. Recently, I got a hold of Mar 'bdisho of Suwa's Nomocanon and the Synodicon Orientale by Chabot, so I am better informed on Persian/Assyrian/"totally not Nestorian" Christology. Also, I recently finished reading Wigram's History of the Assyrian Church. It seems that Nestorius is not followed in the East, but he is venerated for reasons stemming mostly from history. Given that the COE even included the Tome of St Leo (with St removed before Cyril, replaced by a negative epithet, and "two qnume" added) and that all subsequent and, as far as I can see, prior COE definitions are totally Chalcedonian, why in the world haven't the two come together. Okay, so we anathamized Theodore of Mopsuestia, but most of our scholors agree that that was a political move aiming to appease the monophysites and achieve union--it didn't work. Our idea of Theotokos is the same, if Wigram's explaination at the end of his book is correct (and Marganeeta d'Mar 'bdisho supports it). We take it to mean that she gave birth to the divine person who is of two natures--divine and human--and ever remains in two natures, without mingling, mixture, or confusion. The COE seems to object as they take the very old idea that God/Alaha/O Theos means God the Father who is the source of the Son and the Spirit. The term "Triune God" is a modern invention. This is not saying that we don't see the trinity as one essence in three persons, but that headship of the Father is maintained. So, Mar Babai accept Mary as Theotokos as long as it refers to her as Mother of Christ the True God and not as some sort of Theogenetrix. Fine, we mean the same thing, but Nestorius might not of. He is a third party condemened in the Ecumenical (Household) Synods of the Roman Empire and his status is of no concern to the Assyrian Church. My guess is that the COE acclaimed him at Beth Lapeh (along with forcing celibates to marry in order to appease Persian--esp the Mobeds'-- tastes) to distance themselves from the Romans.
In short, if we believe the same things, then why cant we come together? The EO, unlike Rome, never requires submission to a certain person, but a union of faith is the only requisite for communion--along with Trinitarian baptism and chrismation by a valid priesthood, both which the COE possesses. Our entire model is that of each national church having its own patriarch and synod. The only ranking between patriarchs is of prominence, ie, the Pat of Constantinople (the most prominent) has no jurisdiction over that of the Orthodox Church in America (the least prominent). It is just a recognition of a particular see's legacy. Icons? Well, the COE had them until the 13th or 14th century, so why would it have a problem now unless its theology was islamisised. It may have given up icons to appease moslem tastes and then developed a puritanical spirit around a practice that was a force of history. It seems silly that we are not in union. It is definatly sad.
In Christ
Ashur Ephraim
Something that has bothered me lately is why is COE and the Eastern Orthodox are still out of communion. Recently, I got a hold of Mar 'bdisho of Suwa's Nomocanon and the Synodicon Orientale by Chabot, so I am better informed on Persian/Assyrian/"totally not Nestorian" Christology. Also, I recently finished reading Wigram's History of the Assyrian Church. It seems that Nestorius is not followed in the East, but he is venerated for reasons stemming mostly from history. Given that the COE even included the Tome of St Leo (with St removed before Cyril, replaced by a negative epithet, and "two qnume" added) and that all subsequent and, as far as I can see, prior COE definitions are totally Chalcedonian, why in the world haven't the two come together. Okay, so we anathamized Theodore of Mopsuestia, but most of our scholors agree that that was a political move aiming to appease the monophysites and achieve union--it didn't work. Our idea of Theotokos is the same, if Wigram's explaination at the end of his book is correct (and Marganeeta d'Mar 'bdisho supports it). We take it to mean that she gave birth to the divine person who is of two natures--divine and human--and ever remains in two natures, without mingling, mixture, or confusion. The COE seems to object as they take the very old idea that God/Alaha/O Theos means God the Father who is the source of the Son and the Spirit. The term "Triune God" is a modern invention. This is not saying that we don't see the trinity as one essence in three persons, but that headship of the Father is maintained. So, Mar Babai accept Mary as Theotokos as long as it refers to her as Mother of Christ the True God and not as some sort of Theogenetrix. Fine, we mean the same thing, but Nestorius might not of. He is a third party condemened in the Ecumenical (Household) Synods of the Roman Empire and his status is of no concern to the Assyrian Church. My guess is that the COE acclaimed him at Beth Lapeh (along with forcing celibates to marry in order to appease Persian--esp the Mobeds'-- tastes) to distance themselves from the Romans.
In short, if we believe the same things, then why cant we come together? The EO, unlike Rome, never requires submission to a certain person, but a union of faith is the only requisite for communion--along with Trinitarian baptism and chrismation by a valid priesthood, both which the COE possesses. Our entire model is that of each national church having its own patriarch and synod. The only ranking between patriarchs is of prominence, ie, the Pat of Constantinople (the most prominent) has no jurisdiction over that of the Orthodox Church in America (the least prominent). It is just a recognition of a particular see's legacy. Icons? Well, the COE had them until the 13th or 14th century, so why would it have a problem now unless its theology was islamisised. It may have given up icons to appease moslem tastes and then developed a puritanical spirit around a practice that was a force of history. It seems silly that we are not in union. It is definatly sad.
In Christ
Ashur Ephraim