Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Church of the East Blog
#1
Shlame wBarakhwata bMaran Esho Mshikha nehwun 'mkhun

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.eastmeetseastblog.blogspot.com/">http://www.eastmeetseastblog.blogspot.com/</a><!-- m --> is an effort to present the theology, especially regarding the person of Christ, of the Church of the East to the Eastern Orthodox world as well as the general public.

As a former member of the Church of the East, I have undertaken to read and explore the primary sources of theology that have become part of the "canon of theology" of the Church of the East by their use or as virture of their intended composition such as canons, historical works, and theological frameworks that have been used consistantly by thinkers of the CoE.

My hope is to carefully treat the story of how the CoE came to become isolated and see if there is anything substantial to justify how other churches see her as heretical. I believe that if we Eastern Orthodox knew more of her beliefs and our own history of 623 years of communion (almost 250 of those years post-Ephesus!), we would need to relize that we may be closer to the CoE than to anyother church.

So check out the blog, please suscribe and FOLLOW and of course, LEAVE COMMENTS: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.eastmeetseastblog.blogspot.com/">http://www.eastmeetseastblog.blogspot.com/</a><!-- m -->

Thank you,

Qashisha Aprim Alkhas
Reply
#2
Qasha Aprim, shlame w'burkathe qabbil,

Thank you so much for sharing this blog with us. I have started reading your posts and have already bookmarked it.

b'shayna,

+Shamasha
Reply
#3
Shamasha: thank you for the read. Anything that might need correcting or outrageous. I'v posted a few new entries: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://eastmeetseastblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/chalcedon-in-assyrian-church-second.html">http://eastmeetseastblog.blogspot.com/2 ... econd.html</a><!-- m -->
Any suggested topics of interest?

--Mkhila Aprim, qashisha
Reply
#4
Shlame w'eqare qabil Qashisha Aprim,

The third post on Chalcedon is very good reading. The reasoning contained in it is solid, and is in fact the bedrock of our prior negotiations with the Roman branch of the Church. The Common Christological Declaration between HH John Paul II and HH Mar Dinkha would not have been possible, I don't believe, without the centuries old understanding of Chalcedon.

However, I do not agree with the classification of the western councils as a higher priority than the eastern synods based on the order of their listing in the synodicon.

The reason for this is, of course, the rejection of Ephesus and the rejection of the condemnation of the saints Mar Theodore, Mar Diodurus and Mar Nestorius.

In other words, it is the Synods of the East that defined what was acceptable from the Western Councils (not the other way around.). This is demonstrated, for example, by the relationship between Marutha and the assembled Eastern Synod he approached with the decisions from Nicea.

He did not approach the Patriarch with the sense of being a messenger from a master to a subordinate. But rather, the assembled Synod was presented with the decisions, which they examined carefully and accepted as being officially binding in the East.

They also had the option of invoking their refusal to accept the decision of a Western council, as they did of course with Ephesus and every other council since other than Chalcedon.

It is my opinion that the main reason Chalcedon is included in the synodicon is because it represented what many saw as a necessary correction to Ephesus and the ultimate defeat of those who took the side of Cyril and the robber council. Hence the break with the Monophysites because of their rejection of Chalcedon.

What the Church of the East saw in Chalcedon (a council in which it was not a participant) was a necessary (albeit clumsy) correction to Ephesus (another council in which it was not a participant). A correction that brought the Western definition of Christology closer to the Eastern understanding, and one which allowed it to be acceptable to the Eastern Synod. And that is indicative of the power that the assembled Synod, with the Patriarch at its head, has to define what is canonical and officially binding in our tradition.

b'Sheyna,
+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)