Author Topic: Theological Differences Between Assyro-Chaldean and Greek Catholics  (Read 32420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,026
Re: Theological Differences Between Assyro-Chaldean and Greek Catholics
« Reply #90 on: July 03, 2008, 02:03:48 AM »
This EO is not 'comfortable with that, no. Especially Christ's quoting the 22nd Psalm from the cross being interpreted in this fashion.
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theological Differences Between Assyro-Chaldean and Greek Catholics
« Reply #91 on: July 03, 2008, 03:58:47 AM »
This EO is not 'comfortable with that, no. Especially Christ's quoting the 22nd Psalm from the cross being interpreted in this fashion.

Do you mean the quote from the Cross being interpreted as a separation of the Divinity and Humanity? If so, I fully agree.
I think Christ quoting the first line of the Psalm assumes the hearer is aware of the full text of the Psalm.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,026
Re: Theological Differences Between Assyro-Chaldean and Greek Catholics
« Reply #92 on: July 03, 2008, 06:45:17 AM »
Do you mean the quote from the Cross being interpreted as a separation of the Divinity and Humanity? If so, I fully agree.
I think Christ quoting the first line of the Psalm assumes the hearer is aware of the full text of the Psalm.
Yes, and yes.
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline ronyodish

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Theological Differences Between Assyro-Chaldean and Greek Catholics
« Reply #93 on: July 03, 2008, 03:18:50 PM »
There was never a separation between the Divinity and Humanity in Christ.  At no time did the Son ever separate from His human Qnoma.  No Apostolic Church and tradition maintains that the Union was separated.  Specifically, the Assyro-Chaldean tradition, or the Churches of the East, vigorously reject a division or separation in Christ.

It is the One Christ who shows us His Divinity and His Humanity.  In the Incarnation, there are not two Sons, but one Son who is God and Man.

Quote
I'm not at all an expert in these things, but I get a feeling some of what you wrote above may contain some "separatist" (if that's a real word) language that would make the OO's feel uncomfortable.

Salpy,

As far as I know (and you can correct me on this), the OO in general seem to be more comfortable with the language of the Incarnate God, rather than God and Man.  At least, that's what Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Orthodox says:

-----------
Similarly, we speak about the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ,
the Incarnate God, and we do not say "God and man".
-----------

For us, we speak of the one Lord Jesus Christ, God and Man.  I see this as having the same meaning as Enfleshed God or Incarnate God, just different wording.  The Alexandrians loved to speak in terms of "Word/Flesh" or "God/Flesh", whereas we preferred a "Word/Man" or "God/Man" terminology.

God bless,

Rony

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,479
Re: Theological Differences Between Assyro-Chaldean and Greek Catholics
« Reply #94 on: September 06, 2008, 03:00:18 PM »
Quote
My first question is, does the Chaldean Church accept the phrase, "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh?"

Salpy,

Being in the Catholic Communion, we don’t consider that phrase as heresy, since it was accepted as orthodox at Constantinople II, but we would re-express it like this:

One of the Trinity became Man and suffered.

The Chaldean version of the Creed says:  “. . . one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God . . . descended from heaven, betook a body by the power of the Holy Spirit, was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary and became man, who suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, who died . . .”

So you see, the Son, who is one Qnoma of the Trinity, became man and suffered.

Quote
My second question is, does the Chaldean Church teach that Christ's divinity and humanity ever seperated? 

No.  The Union of the Son and the human Qnoma was inseparable.  Christ was always One Person, His Divinity and His Humanity remained inseparable.

Quote
For example, on the Cross, when Christ said, "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"  Do you believe that at that moment Christ's divinity left Him and that is why He said that?

No.  The one Person of the Union, the Lord Jesus Christ, cried that statement out as Man, not because a separation of the Union has occurred, but because the one Christ does certain things as God and certain things as Man.

Here is how Mar Narsai, a father of the Church of the East, describes Christ in the passion/death/resurrection:

------------------------------------------------
the  attendants seized Him and bound His hands, as Man;
and He healed the ear that Simon cut off, as God.
He stood in the place of judgement and bore insult, as Man;
and He declared that He is about to come in glory, as God.
He bore  His Cross upon His shoulder, as Man;
and He revealed and announced the  destruction of Zion, as God.
He was hanged upon the wood and endured the  passion, as Man;
and He shook the earth and darkened the sun, as God.

Nails were driven into His body, as Man;
and He opened the graves and quickened the dead, as  God.
He cried out upon the Cross 'My God, My God,' as Man;
and promised Paradise to the thief, as God.
His side was pierced with a spear, as  Man;
and His nod rent the temple veil, as God.
They embalmed His body and He was buried in the earth, as Man;
and He raised up His temple by His mighty  power, as God.
-----------------------------------------

By the way, in the Peshitta, the way to translate the phrase in Matt. 27:46 (ܐܝܠ ܐܝܠ ܠܡܢܐ ܫܒܩܬܢܝ) might be better done in English like this: “[my]God, [my]God, why have you spared me”.  This is how it is translated by Assyrian scholar Paul Younan.  In my opinion, this may be a better translation than the usual “forsaken me” translation.

Also, Jesus was utilizing Psalm 22:1 when he cried this out.

Thanks for the questions  :)

God bless,

Rony
In the Pascha service we speak of the sun darkening of the sun, etc. as Creation suffering with the Creator.  The "My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken Me?" as the Creator suffering with His Creation.

Thank you, Rony.  For me, personally, this is more useful than examining obscure terms from a language I don't speak.   :)

I'm not at all an expert in these things, but I get a feeling some of what you wrote above may contain some "separatist" (if that's a real word) language that would make the OO's feel uncomfortable.

I'm wondering about the feelings of the non-Chaldean Catholics, as well as the EO's.  Do they feel comfortable with the above?

This is an interesting topic.   :)
Depends on the context. In a historical context with that was Nestorian, with a separation in the hypostatic union of Christ, I'd have a problem with it.  In the Oriental Orthodox, with no such history, I wouldn't.  Quite the opposite.  In the EO Church there are lots of hymns that dwell on the paradox of the communication of idioms, which is what I think we have here, and would be no problem.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2008, 03:06:00 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth