Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Questions from a Presbyterian
#1
Greetings in the name of Our Lord,

I am a member of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil and a student of Theology. Due to all the persecution that has sadly been going on in the Middle East, I began to research on some of the churches that were being persecuted. I knew about the existence of the Churches of the East but I didn't know much about them beyond the fact that they had broken with the West in the 5th century. I have to say that, as I recently began to research more, I am very much surprised at how deep and rich the history of the Church of the East is. It was largely unknown to me that Christianity had developed and thrived out of the Roman Empire from such an early age. Although I knew about the existence of Christianity in the East, I guess I have always implicitly assumed that all of the significant development and growth was always happening in the West, in the context of the Roman Empire. Now, I see that this was definitely not the case and that a parallel development was going on in the East, in the Persian Empire which was as rich and significant.

As I was researching, I messaged the "Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East" page on Facebook to ask questions and they referred me to this Forum. I have begun to look around and read some of the threads. I have seen a post by Paul Younan referring to another Forum, <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.assyrianchurch.com/forum/">http://www.assyrianchurch.com/forum/</a><!-- m -->, but it seems to be no longer active, so I'm going to post some of my questions here (since I have seen that others have been doing so). I hope Paul and others can help me out here and I apologize if some of these questions show a lack of basic understanding. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

1) Are the Churches of the East divided into different denominations like the Protestants? Or does it have a unified hierarchical structure? I kind of got the impression that there were different denominations from what I saw on Wikipedia.

2) As a Presbyterian, I hold to the Apostolic, the Nicene, the Athanasian and the Chalcedonian Creeds. As far as I understand it, the Church of the East only subscribes to the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds. Or do they subscribe to the Athanasian Creed as well? Regarding the Chalcedonian Creed, although the Church of the East does not officially subscribe to it, would it be accurate to say that you guys accept the substance of what the Creed states without using the same terminology? In terms of the Creed itself, without considering the history behind it, could a member of the Church of the East agree with it completely?

3) What does the Church of the East believe regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper? I would assume that our Western terminology would not be used (such as transubstantiation or consubstantiation or spiritual presence), but would the Church of the East hold to a view similar to one of these? Does the Church of the East believe that Christ is physically present in the Lord's Supper or only spiritually? Does the bread and the wine remain physically bread and wine or is there some kind of transformation like in Roman Catholicism?

4) How does the Church of the East view the Ten Commandments of the Law? As a Presbyterian, I believe that the ceremonial laws given by Moses were shadows of the person and work of Christ and, therefore, that they have been fulfilled by Him in is coming. On the other hand, we see the moral laws as forever binding because they reflect the character and holiness of God. We see the Ten Commandments as a as a summary of all this moral law and, therefore, as foundation for all Christian ethics, although we believe only Christ has obeyed them perfectly.

5) What is the place of Scripture in the Church of the East? Does it believe all dogmas of the Church can be derived from Scripture (either explicitly or implicitly) or does it hold that there are some dogmas that is not in any way contained in Scripture but must nevertheless be held to?

6) I have read that the Church of the East does not hold to the doctrine of original sin. I have to say that this was to me the most surprising aspect of what I have seen so far from the theology of the Church of the East. Or do you use another terminology and don't refer to it as original sin? If not, how does the Church of the East account for what the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans states, that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23)?

7) As a Presbyterian, we hold that praying to departed saints is a sin against the first commandment of the Decalogue because we believe prayer is only supposed to be directed to God, and that making images of God or worshiping saints through images of God are sins against the second commandment. Does the Church of the East have similar views regarding prayer to dead saints or worship of God or saints through images? How does it differ from the Roman Catholic view?

8 ) Do you know what is the relationship between the Church of the East and Protestant Churches are in the Middle East in the misdt of the conflicts?

I hope I haven't made this too long! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Reply
#2
Hi everyone

If you'd like to study the theology of the CoE in English, please start with this excellent resource.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0983754306?pc_redir=1407585449&robot_redir=1">http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/098375430 ... ot_redir=1</a><!-- m -->

+Shamasha
Reply
#3
mcarmichael Wrote:Hi Paul,

Thanks for hosting this site, and I hope things are going well.

I appreciate your scholarship, and Aramaic Primacy is an interesting topic, but it's very new to me and sort of secondary to my interest in the Assyrian Church; and with the emphasis of this site being the Peshitta and Aramaic Primacy, I'm curious if this is an official teaching of the COE, or what the history of that is.

Although I'm guessing it's probably not, this seemed like an appropriate place to ask. Would you be able to answer that?

Thanks. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Hi mcarmichael,

If I understood your question correctly, the concept of Aramaic Primacy (or Greek Primacy) is not an official teaching of the CoE. As with all Apostolic Churches, the focus of the CoE is on the Gospel of Christ and the Salvation of man via His Sacrifice.

The CoE has used Aramaic as its universal language since its founding (it is, indeed, the language of its core ethnic groups for thousands of years), and holds that the Peshitta was delivered to our lands by the Apostles themselves. Outside of that, the Church does not proclaim anything regarding textual history as dogma, nor as central to its mission to humanity. The Peshitta is the official text of the NT that the Church uses during its liturgical readings, and the official canon of authorized text which defines our Christian Faith. It has never allowed another version to be read during the liturgy, and has meticulously preserved this text to this very day.

Hope that helps,
+Shamasha
Reply
#4
Hi,

I was a former Reformed Presbyterian, just a couple months ago I'm transitioning as a Byzantine Catholic catechumen. When studying for my catecheses I found out that there are also Chaldean Catholics. Is there any further dialogue between Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV with Pope Francis? I heard the current Chaldean Patriarch is willing to step down once CE and RC are reunited. I'm also interested with the recent progress between CE and Russian Orthodox. Is there any Facebook group that I can join to learn more about CE? Thank you.

Sincerely,

Adithia
Reply
#5
Hi mcarmichael,

mcarmichael Wrote:Why Byzantine Catholic?

It's a long journey, I went to WTS for a while. You can search Jason Stellman, a former PCA pastor. My story is quite similar to him. You can find me on Facebook.
In brief, for about 7 years I was on my way in becoming an Eastern Orthodox. But I was troubled by their stance towards Assyrian Churches (Non-Ephesian) and Oriental Churches (Non-Chalcedonian). They consider Assyrian and Oriental Christians as unbaptized pagans devoid of all grace. While Catholic in 1994 issued a joint declaration with Assyrian Church to clarify the issue of the title of Theotokos and mutually lifted the anathemas. That wouldn't be possible in EO.

Sincerely,
Reply
#6
adithia.kusno Wrote:They consider Assyrian and Oriental Christians as unbaptized pagans devoid of all grace. While Catholic in 1994 issued a joint declaration with Assyrian Church to clarify the issue of the title of Theotokos and mutually lifted the anathemas. That wouldn't be possible in EO.

Hi Adithia,

That's because the EO within Christendom is the equivalent of Wahhabism within Islam. One is just as fanatical and radical as the other, and neither of them represent their claimed faith. If they want to see unbaptized pagans devoid of all grace, they should look in the mirror - because by saying such things, they are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, and the Body of Christ which has given witness and spilled the blood of millions of its martyrs for His Name. They should be ashamed of themselves, and they will ultimately answer to God Himself for this blasphemy.

To answer your original question - I will need to correct you on one point, namely, your choice of the word "reunite" (in the context of RC & CoE) is historically inaccurate. To "re-unite" presupposes there was a previous unity. That is not historically accurate, as these two churches in two different empires were never united in any sort of ecclesiastic relationship whatsoever.

The Chaldean Patriarch is not willing to step down, even in the above scenario. The ultimate goal of the Chaldean Church forming in the 16th century (and rupturing the Church of the East in half) was to swallow it (and its glorious history) into the Roman fold. There is a reason why the Chaldean Church is the oldest Uniate group - the RCC came after the CoE first, then later other Uniates sprung up. There is a reason for why they chose to go after the CoE first, and that is because they know that it has never been within their fold.

While there is constant dialogue with all of our sister churches (including Rome) regarding matters such as the troubles we are all experiencing in the world at the moment (especially in the middle east), no - there has been no further dialogue within any context of ecclesiastical unity for a number of reasons. Most importantly, within the current framework for "unity" in the Latin sense, there is a need for submission to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. That is a show-stopper, and it will never happen. So as long as that is the Latin formula for "unity", "unity" will never occur. Again, that would be "unity" - and not "re-unity", as that has never been a reality (not before Ephesus, and not after Ephesus.)

Also, we remember that a certain Trojan Horse (namely, a former Bishop of the CoE) was placed internally by Rome to cause strife and division. And when his scheming against the CoE and its Patriarch was unveiled, and he was defrocked and laicized by the Holy Synod and Patriarchate of the CoE, the Chaldean Church had the nerve to adopt him as one of their own Bishops. As you can well imagine, this did not result in improved relations, it demonstrated a lack of respect for the decisions of the Holy Synod, and further confirmed the suspicions within the CoE that the Joint Declaration of 1994 was merely part of the larger goal of the RCC to swallow up our tradition.

The Joint Declaration did result in positive things, like the lifting of the mutual Anathemas. Incidentally, the Holy Synod of the CoE had lifted these Anathemas long before the declaration in 1994. It was Rome that lifted their Anathemas in 1994. So, good things (like a mutual understanding of terminologies) did occur because of it. But to take it further, in the sense of what the Latin Church desires - no, thank you. We will, as our Patriarch has stated multiple times, be independent from our Apostolic Foundation ... and until the Second Coming of Christ.

I hope that answers your questions, take care.

+Shamasha
Reply
#7
Quote:adithia.kusno, wrote:
They consider Assyrian and Oriental Christians as unbaptized pagans devoid of all grace.

If this is true, where can I find this belief written in any official EO document, or in any of the EO's books? Where did you hear it from exactly? If from a member of their clergy, then please name the Deacon, Priest, or Bishop, and the name of and the city of the Parish they said it in, if you know. Thanks.
Reply
#8
What exactly is the difference between Chalcedonian Christianity and Nestorian Christianity? Sorry for using that, I know Assyrians hate it, just no better way to phrase it! Is it the level of distinction between the Qnomeh of Meshikha?
Reply
#9
Quote:adithia.kusno, wrote:
They consider Assyrian and Oriental Christians as unbaptized pagans devoid of all grace.

I asked about this on a few EO Facebook forums, to see what I could learn. Here are some of the responses thus far.

"That is what a small minority in the EO communion believes, but not overall. Otherwise the methods of reception and the points of con-celebration wouldn't have happened. I learned last night the EO and Assyrian churches basically resolved issues in the 9th century and even con-celebrated to seal the deal, not sure why the division is still in practice for that one. The EO and OO have two statements of unity, one that allow con-celebration which occurred recently with the Syrian and Antiochian church."

"Although both groups are outside of the Orthodox Church, no Orthodox Christian I know would say or even think such a thing. Most are filled with compassion and even admiration for these struggling Christians. The statements are made by someone who doesn't know their faith or live it."

"This is NOT the Orthodox view. If it was all jurisdictions would re-Baptize ACoE & OO Christians who convert but most do not & historicly those groups were never re-baptized when converting."

"Self righteous knuckle heads. They have been Orthodox for 5 minutes and now they know everything. Jesus told us not to judge."

"unbaptized pagans, devoid of all grace."" is not Orthodox teaching, but the views of a very few crazies who use the name Orthodox." - FrJohn D'Alton

"Abouna Peter Farrington (OO Priest) "If that were the case then why do the Greek and Coptic Churches in Alexandria, and the Antiochian and Syrian Churches allow inter-communion? Why is Metropolitan Hilarion calling for reunion? Why are Oriental Orthodox communed in EO Churches all over the world? Why do so many EO attend and receive in my Churches? This is an aspect of a pseudo-traditionalism in the EO that ignores the facts of history."
Reply
#10
mcarmichael Wrote:Would you like to summarize your perspective on the joint declaration?
Or, as a Byzantine Catholic, do you say "Theotokos"?

Hi mcarmichael,

Church of the East always venerate Mary as the Birth-giver of Christ our God. Because the one she gave birth has a divine nature. I would recommend a well written summary by Mar Bawai Soro on Church of the East Christology.
In Eastern Catholic we venerate her as Theotokos, not that she gave birth to the whole Trinity but only to the divine Logos incarnate. She gave Him her humanity, this is why He is consubstantial with us in His humanity.
For more detail you can find me on Facebook.
Reply
#11
Paul Younan Wrote:To answer your original question - I will need to correct you on one point, namely, your choice of the word "reunite" (in the context of RC & CoE) is historically inaccurate. To "re-unite" presupposes there was a previous unity. That is not historically accurate, as these two churches in two different empires were never united in any sort of ecclesiastic relationship whatsoever.

The Chaldean Patriarch is not willing to step down, even in the above scenario. The ultimate goal of the Chaldean Church forming in the 16th century (and rupturing the Church of the East in half) was to swallow it (and its glorious history) into the Roman fold. There is a reason why the Chaldean Church is the oldest Uniate group - the RCC came after the CoE first, then later other Uniates sprung up. There is a reason for why they chose to go after the CoE first, and that is because they know that it has never been within their fold.

Hi Paul,

Before the split in the late fifth century, Church of the East and the West were in communion with each other. This is why Church of the East accepted Nicene faith 80 years after the council convened. I'm willing to be corrected but as far as I know, Chaldean Patriarch is willing to step down once ACoE is in communion with Rome. If you ask what sort of union that would be? The answer is simple, like before Nestorian schism. Is there any example of such unity? Eastern Catholic. We're not under the Bishop of Rome, our own bishops are co-equal with the Holy See. We appointed our own married clergy. My priest is a married man with two children. Bishop of Rome is like our older brother who preside in love. Not like pyramidal structure from top to bottom but like a concentric circle while with every bishops equally shared the same authority divinely instituted by Christ to His twelve and seventy two apostles. But Peter has prominence as one of the three pillars of faith. Unity in this sense is historically valid and biblically sound. It was Caesaropapism which caused division among us. As what we can see in the rivalry between Syrian Orthodox and Malankara Orthodox both are Oriental Orthodox, or between Antioch and Jerusalem in Eastern Orthodox. My Patriarch for example is not under Bishop of Rome, but co-equal with him. This is why we're in communion with Rome, not under. As for Chaldean being the first Uniate is historically inaccurate, Maronite for example was never in schism from Rome. The discussion was interrupted in 2002 but I heard recently is renewed again. I'll pray that day will come when I can visit your parish and receive the Holy Qurban from your priest and you can come to visit my parish and receive communion from my priest. ACoE is Catholic and Apostolic as clarified by Vatican. Old Catholic (schismatic from Vatican I) and Sedevacantists (schismatic from Vatican II) condemned such approach by St. John Paul II in 1994. But that is the right thing to do. I'm looking forward for that day. Just as what the Lord says, to be the first one must be the servant of all. Bishop of Rome is the servant of all. If he is not then he ought to act like one. Pope Francis I believe will be able to bring unity again back like it was before. After all he is the first Bishop of Rome that I know of kissing the hand of Ecumenical Patriarch last time in Jerusalem. He is a humble servant of God.
Reply
#12
Aramaic Wrote:If this is true, where can I find this belief written in any official EO document, or in any of the EO's books? Where did you hear it from exactly? If from a member of their clergy, then please name the Deacon, Priest, or Bishop, and the name of and the city of the Parish they said it in, if you know. Thanks.

You can go to Ask About the Orthodox Faith group on Facebook. They consider Ask an Orthodox Priest to be a modernist group. AAOF is more fundamental while AOP is more ecumenical. You can check Orthodox Info also. This is why if you ask in AAOF you'll hear them explaining why non-Orthodox must be baptized because their heterodox baptism were invalid and void of grace. They also deny baptism by desire, eg. martyr. They argued that Arians who died as martyrs died as heretics not for the Orthodox faith. Their death argued them is void of grace. There is also another discussion on common prayer, and it's also condemned by non ecumenist, because the Fathers forbid common prayer with those not in communion.

This article explaining why EO don't consider Latins as Christians
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/B4.htm">http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/B4.htm</a><!-- m -->

This is why EO is plaque by neo-Donatism. Not my word but from one of my EO friend.
Reply
#13
Thirdwoe Wrote:"unbaptized pagans, devoid of all grace."" is not Orthodox teaching, but the views of a very few crazies who use the name Orthodox." - FrJohn D'Alton
"Abouna Peter Farrington (OO Priest) "If that were the case then why do the Greek and Coptic Churches in Alexandria, and the Antiochian and Syrian Churches allow inter-communion? Why is Metropolitan Hilarion calling for reunion? Why are Oriental Orthodox communed in EO Churches all over the world? Why do so many EO attend and receive in my Churches? This is an aspect of a pseudo-traditionalism in the EO that ignores the facts of history."

Hi Thirdwoe,

I never said anything about OO view of ACoE. I agree that not all EO agree. You can find article on Orthodox Info. What you get from Ask an Orthodox Priest is mostly a moderate version, which is good. But if you want to get the fundamental point of view (non ecumenist) then you need to check Ask About the Orthodox Faith. AOP for example deny Toll House, while AAOF accept it. From AAOF point of view AOP is a modernist group. AAOF would not allow Orthodox to pray together or having common prayer with heterodox.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/ou_dei.htm">http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/ou_dei.htm</a><!-- m -->

Both Fr. John and Abouna Peter are nice people, and I do agree with them that such view are extremists. But sadly Fr. John is considered as a modernist in another group, and Abouna Peter is from Oriental Orthodox. EO don't consider OO as Orthodox. You can read article from Orthodox Info. I myself disagree with Orthodox Info because I'm an ecumenist. But EO and OO as majority is still in opposition with ecumenical dialogue.
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_share.aspx
Reply
#14
Thirdwoe Wrote:"unbaptized pagans, devoid of all grace."" is not Orthodox teaching, but the views of a very few crazies who use the name Orthodox." - FrJohn D'Alton
"Abouna Peter Farrington (OO Priest) "If that were the case then why do the Greek and Coptic Churches in Alexandria, and the Antiochian and Syrian Churches allow inter-communion? Why is Metropolitan Hilarion calling for reunion? Why are Oriental Orthodox communed in EO Churches all over the world? Why do so many EO attend and receive in my Churches? This is an aspect of a pseudo-traditionalism in the EO that ignores the facts of history."

Hi Thirdwoe,

I never said anything about OO view of ACoE. I agree that not all EO agree. You can find article on Orthodox Info. What you get from Ask an Orthodox Priest is mostly a moderate version, which is good. But if you want to get the fundamental point of view (non ecumenist) then you need to check Ask About the Orthodox Faith. AOP for example deny Toll House, while AAOF accept it. From AAOF point of view AOP is a modernist group. AAOF would not allow Orthodox to pray together or having common prayer with heterodox.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/ou_dei.htm">http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/ou_dei.htm</a><!-- m -->

Both Fr. John and Abouna Peter are nice people, and I do agree with them that such view are extremists. But sadly Fr. John is considered as a modernist in another group, and Abouna Peter is from Oriental Orthodox. EO don't consider OO as Orthodox. You can read article from Orthodox Info. I myself disagree with Orthodox Info because I'm an ecumenist. But EO and OO as majority is still in opposition with ecumenical dialogue.
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_share.aspx
Reply
#15
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:What exactly is the difference between Chalcedonian Christianity and Nestorian Christianity? Sorry for using that, I know Assyrians hate it, just no better way to phrase it! Is it the level of distinction between the Qnomeh of Meshikha?

Hi ScorpioSniper2,

I'm still in contact with a few Assyrians to make a Facebook group similar to Ask About the Orthodox Faith and Ask an Orthodox Priest. My aim is to foster a better understanding between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East. 2025 is the 1700 anniversary of Nicene faith, we all share one Nicene faith. I hope this group which we planned will be able to raise awareness of our common faith and help us to build full communion with one another as it was during time of the apostles. I hope Paul Younan would be willing to join us. His insight on Assyrian Christology is very helpful, I've been following him since 6 years ago in Assyrian forum which now no longer existed.

I'm willing to be corrected by Paul Younan in case I misrepresent Assyrian Christology. Based on my study of Mar Bawai Soro explanation on ACoE Christology. Parsopa is a concrete individualization of qnoma. Qnoma is an individuation (not individualized) of kyana. Kyana is equivalent with Greek ousia. To help you try Goggle Old Nicene myahypostasis Triadology vs Neo Nicene trihypostases Triadology. Assyrians Christology run along Old Nicene. In Old Nicene physis and hypostasis are synonym. Ousia and hypostasis are also synonym. You can read the original 325 Nicene faith where in the last paragraph they equated ousia to be identical with hypostasis. This is why when Nestorius was speaking about two hypostases he was actually thinking in term of Old Nicene. While St. Cyril was talking within the framework of Neo Nicene, because in 362 at Alexandria, St. Athanasius distinguished ousia from hypostasis. St. Cyril follows him closely. While Nestorius was following Theodore who follow Diodore who follow Lucian of Antioch. Antiochene School is following Old Nicene terminology. This was resolved by Sts Maximos the Confessor, John of Damascene, Leontius of Constantinople, and Leontius of Jerusalem. These four fathers used two hypostases terminology, reviving Antiochene Christology. Because of this Oriental Orthodox accused the Sixth Council in 681 for being Nestorians. So how two hypostases do not lead to two subjects? Because the human hypostasis can't subsist independently apart from being assumed by the divine hypostasis. If you want more detail, find me on Facebook.

Summary:
Assyrian/Chalcedon: One kyana/ousia of Godhead shared by qnoma/physis of the Father to qnome/physes of the Son and the Spirit. Only qnuma/physis of the Son incarnate. His divine parsopa/hypostasis assumed human parsopa/hypostasis at incarnation. His human parsopa/hypostasis exists dependently with His divine parsopa/hypostasis. St. Paul illustrated this with a man leaving behind his fleshly tent. The man exists independently from his flesh but his flesh exists dependently with the man. In fact this is the only illustration our Lord ever used in explaining His own Christology.

You can read Mar Bawai Soro explanation
On Nestorius' Christology
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070809175726/http://www.cired.org/east/0303_nestorius_of_constantinople.pdf">http://web.archive.org/web/200708091757 ... inople.pdf</a><!-- m -->
On Council of Ephesus
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070413163608/http://www.cired.org/east/0306_lifting_anathema.pdf">http://web.archive.org/web/200704131636 ... athema.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Full communion with ACoE is almost impossible in EO and OO. It's only possible in Catholic. Because unlike EO and OO, Ecumenical Council for Catholic is not irreformable.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)