Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Questions from a Presbyterian
#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


Messages In This Thread
Questions from a Presbyterian - by fbritorj - 09-01-2014, 08:43 AM
Re: Questions from a Presbyterian - by Aramaic - 09-28-2014, 07:52 AM
Re: Questions from a Presbyterian - by Thirdwoe - 09-28-2014, 03:18 PM
Re: Questions from a Presbyterian - by adithia.kusno - 09-28-2014, 10:56 PM
Re: Questions from a Presbyterian - by Thirdwoe - 09-30-2014, 05:45 AM
Re: Questions from a Presbyterian - by Thirdwoe - 10-01-2014, 06:53 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)