Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question of Isolation of COE
#1
On the Peshitta.org forum I have come across a few statements saying that the COE was isolated from "Western Christianity" until about the 1800s where some missionaries came into contact with members who belonged to the COE. I express my question(s) in general terms but when did the process of isolation of COE begin? I also ask what were the factors that isolated the COE from the rest of the Western Churches: was it geography; culture or language or combination of the 3?

If the isolation was combination of geography, culture and language which factor was the most dominate?

Was there isolation even before the council of Ephesus in 431 AD; and, if so, can we conclude that the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) intensified the isolation? I ask this with the understanding that most of you are aware of the Ephesus Council and I know just some of the bare facts of this council and that it become just not a theological disagreement but manifested (soon afterwards) some deep wounds for all parties but mainly (I think, not sure) mostly for those who belong to the COE? Am I on the right thinking here?

Please feel free to be at liberty to answer briefly or to some greater length. Also, you can provide links and/or articles if you would.

Thank you.

Kindly,

Mike Karoules
Reply
#2
Iasou Mike,

As you are probably aware, the CoE was in a different empire altogether. So, the isolation was a reality from the very beginning. (Imagine the apostles crossing over to that other world.) The only commonality was the Jewish culture present in those areas, and the language of the empire was Aramaic (something the apostles had in common with them.)

I would say all of the factors that you mention contributed, secondary of course to the reality of empire described above.

The only exception I would mention is Ephesus. As you know, that was a council for the western empire and its community. We had no participation in that council, and although it did not help to bring the Persian empire's church closer, it was not the primary cause of that isolation which was a reality from the beginning.

+Shamasha
Reply
#3
Hello Paul.

Yes, about Ephesus in 431, I remember now you mentioning that COE was exempt from that and , actually, really had no idea about this meeting until around 510 AD (something like that? ) Did the Western churches send delegates to the East and ask (or force ) the church in the East to accept the outcome of this council? And , to put this in a humerous way, the COE said "not" and told them to leave (go back West ) as soon as they could get their shoes on?

Yeah, I read a few of the comments on this council about the East folks giving them a sandal in their butts.

Okay, I think that will do it for tonight. Thank you, Paul

Kindly,

Mike
Reply
#4
Shlama Akhan Mike,

Keep in mind, it was not just Ephesus. Decades after the Nicene Council, the Western Church sent delegates (Aramaic speaking delegates, incidentally) to the Persian Church to review and accept those decrees way before Ephesus.

Ask yourself this: how isolated was this community, if delegates needed to be sent from the Roman Empire every time an important council was held ?

And again, these travelers weren't Greeks. They were Aramaic speakers (like, Marutha, who was the envoy who brought the Nicene council decisions.)

How isolated? Very much so. But fortunately, Aramaic speakers existed on both sides of the border. And they communicated with each other that way. But they lived in a reality in which their empires were at constant war with each other. And many times, these visits from the western delegates were viewed with suspicion (and often resulted in bad retribution to the eastern Christians, because they were accused of being sympathetic to Rome - the enemy.)

Just like today: Christians in the Middle East are persecuted because they are suspected of being tied to their co-religionists in the west. Today it is the Muslims who slaughter villages because of the actions of some western nations. Back then, it was the Zoroastrians who slaughtered villages because they suspected the Christians had allegiance to Caesar (which was untrue of course.)

Isolation was a reality from the start, and became more necessary and convenient for survival as time went on.

We had no Constantine.

+Shamasha
Reply
#5
Paul,

Well, I would have been somewhat reserved to say the the COE 's seperation was that wide. And further, you say that the COE had NO representation (nor delegates sent) to the Council of Nicea (325 AD, approx.) and the council of Constantinople (381 AD). Now, that is news to me. I thought they might have had some token representation at these councils, just to say (more-less) that at least they were there. And the COE did not know of either of these councils (as well, just like the council of Ephesus at 431)? Can this be taken to the bank?

Thanks for the informations Paul, and, the thread (scolling down some) of Council of Ephesus has hammered some points down for me.

I guess the picture I am seeing is that there was pretty clear seperation between the COE and the Western (
Greek) churches; by the West I mean the West as it is generally understood to be along the school (or spirit) of the Council of Nicea and Councils that followed; or what we might term as "Roman Catholic" school of tradition. And I am seeing that the Western tradition churches always wanted to get the COE to go along with them or (should I say) to get them under "subjection." And, I see the when the West sent delegates to the East to present the outcome of their councils they weren't just being sent to share and let them know what happened. The West wanted them (or demanded?) that the COE fall in line right behind. And from what I gather the COE was not about to do any of this.

Grace and Mercy to you in good measure;

Kindly,

Mike
Reply
#6
Hi Akhi

Yes, take that to the bank. The CoE had zero presence in any western council, and vice-versa.

It wasn't always contentious. It was pretty cordial most of the time. The CoE welcomed the decisions of Nicea and included them in their own canon law. We recite the creed every mass.

Ephesus was rejected outright, because of the way they treated two Greek Doctors of the Church, who died in the good grace of the Church before the council was assembled, and who couldn't come to their own defense. It had nothing to do with Nestorius, even though the CoE didn't feel he was wrong either.

The rejection was due to the way they treated Theodore and Diodore, both well respected doctors of the church, and famous and revered even in Persia.

+Shamasha
Reply
#7
Paul,

thanks.
Reply
#8
Maybe somebody could write an article about this with some references?
Reply
#9
Barjakob Wrote:Maybe somebody could write an article about this with some references?

Start reading on page 14:

http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/CoEHistory.pdf

+Shamasha
Reply
#10
Paul Younan Wrote:Hi Akhi

Yes, take that to the bank. The CoE had zero presence in any western council, and vice-versa.

It wasn't always contentious. It was pretty cordial most of the time. The CoE welcomed the decisions of Nicea and included them in their own canon law. We recite the creed every mass.

Ephesus was rejected outright, because of the way they treated two Greek Doctors of the Church, who died in the good grace of the Church before the council was assembled, and who couldn't come to their own defense. It had nothing to do with Nestorius, even though the CoE didn't feel he was wrong either.

The rejection was due to the way they treated Theodore and Diodore, both well respected doctors of the church, and famous and revered even in Persia.

+Shamasha

Hi, i found this:
John, bishop of Persia and India, was in Nicea! Mark & Ruth Dickens. "The Church of the East". Oxuscom.com. Retrieved 20 May 2013.
Kind regards
Michael
Reply
#11
mickoy Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Hi Akhi

Yes, take that to the bank. The CoE had zero presence in any western council, and vice-versa.

It wasn't always contentious. It was pretty cordial most of the time. The CoE welcomed the decisions of Nicea and included them in their own canon law. We recite the creed every mass.

Ephesus was rejected outright, because of the way they treated two Greek Doctors of the Church, who died in the good grace of the Church before the council was assembled, and who couldn't come to their own defense. It had nothing to do with Nestorius, even though the CoE didn't feel he was wrong either.

The rejection was due to the way they treated Theodore and Diodore, both well respected doctors of the church, and famous and revered even in Persia.

+Shamasha

Hi, i found this:
John, bishop of Persia and India, was in Nicea! Mark & Ruth Dickens. "The Church of the East". Oxuscom.com. Retrieved 20 May 2013.
Kind regards
Michael

John who? Bishop of what diocese in the Church of the East? And who are "Mark and Ruth" Dickens?

Don't you think we would know if we had attended Nicea?

And do you think we would have needed Marutha to bring the decisions of the Nicene council to us 79 years after the fact, if we were already participants?

Seriously?

+Shamasha
Reply
#12
Hi Paul,
please have a look at this:
quote:
Eusebius of Caesarea mentions the presence of a bishop from Persia at the Council of Nicea in AD. 325. In another account he is mentioned as bishop of Fais. In the list of bishops who signed the decrees of the Council as mentioned by Gelasius, there is one, "John the Persian, on behalf of the churches in the whole of Persia and the great India." A.M. Mundadan accepts the Gelasian list as genuine and authentic?. (A. M. Mundadan, History of Christianity in India, vol. 1, Bangalore, Theological Publications in India, 1984, p. 79.) The Council of Nicea was called together by emperor Constantine and it was a council of bishops in the Roman Empire. It was very unlikely that a bishop from Persia had attended the Council of Greek bishops, officially representing the whole of Persia and great India. We need to remember that it was only in the Synod of Isaac in AD 410, almost a century later, that the Persian church, with some modifications, accepted the decrees of the Council of Nicea. Moreover, it is very doubtful that the various Christian congregations in Persia became a nation wide community by the time of Nicea so that one bishop could represent the whole of Persia. In all probability the inclusion of ?John of Persia and Great India? was a later interpolation to convey the truly ecumenical character of the Nicene Council. However, it shows that when this interpolation was made, the interpolator was aware of the connection between the Indian church and the Persian church (more specifically with the Christians in Fars as Persia was changed to Fars in another document).
East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia by T.V. Philip
T. V. Philip, born in India and a lay member of the Mar Thoma Church, has worked and taught in India, Europe, USA and Australia. He is a church historian, and a former Professor at the United Theological College, Bangalore, India.
I hope this helps a bit...
Kind regards
Michael
Reply
#13
Akhi Michael

That's the whole point. The account was a later forgery, in order to give the false impression that the council was truly ecumenical. It was not. Nor was any bishop of any capacity in the Persian Church present, representing the CoE in that council. Otherwise, the CoE would have known it. And it wouldn't have needed to be presented with the results of the council 90 years later.

It is extremely offensive to be taught your own history by others, implying that you don't even know which council you yourself attended. The CoE would know if it was present or not, and it wouldn't need to be taught about it centuries later by outsiders.

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)