OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 10:03:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: John Paul II and the Assryian Church of the East  (Read 13647 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« on: May 11, 2004, 10:57:29 PM »

http://www.cired.org/photos/church_1.html

Can anyone tell me the sigficance of this document?
What did it exactly say?
Are the RCC and ACE (Assyrian Church of the East) any where near formal union?


I know the Assyrians aren't OO's...well I don't think they are, but I didn't know where else to ask this.

Thanks!
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 10:58:54 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2004, 11:05:12 PM »

Oh never mind...I found it..... http://www.cired.org/cat/03_Common_Christological_Dec.pdf
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Oblio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 454

The Pointless One !


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2004, 11:13:17 PM »

Arent they Nestorian ?? Shocked
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 11:14:29 PM by Oblio » Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2004, 11:18:36 PM »

lol.....I don't know...but if you click on the link in my second post...and read the comon declaration, the top of the second page states that both side respect the way they address the Blessed Virgin, and both sides share in the same faith on the matter.

It is interesting that the OO's aren't heretics, but the Assyrians are? You Orthodox sure are confused, no offense!
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,276


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2004, 11:18:51 PM »

My understanding of this is that the RC's, after dialogue with the Assyrians, recognise that Nestorius wasn't a Nestorian (the former being the individual, the latter being the heresy bearing his name), and so those following Nestorius' actual teaching are not Nestorian either.  Assyrians, in turn, recognise the validity of calling the Virgin Mary "Theotokos", even if they don't explicitly use that terminology (I've heard that they refer to her as "Mother of Christ our God", but I don't have a source for that).  

There is great cooperation between Catholics and Assyrians today, especially after the Common Christological Declaration.  Perhaps Dn. Lance or Amadeus could tell us more about their Church's perspective on the Assyrians?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,276


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2004, 11:21:49 PM »

It is interesting that the OO's aren't heretics, but the Assyrians are? You Orthodox sure are confused, no offense!

Well, there is a difference.  From what I've gathered, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, in dialoguing with each other, have come to realise that, in spite of different ways of expression, they share substantially the same faith.  However, in dialoguing with Assyrians, both EO and OO have com to realise that, in spite of different ways of expression, they share substantially a different faith.  Again, no source for that, and I should've been in bed twenty minutes ago so I'm gonna make this quick.  Others are free to correct me on this.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2004, 11:28:35 PM »

Mor the comon declaration does state that the Assryians do call Mary, "Mother of Christ our Lord and God." However, they do commemorate Nestorius on their Litrugical Calendar. I have heard that the Hallowing of Mar Nestorius is actually quite beautiful.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2004, 11:31:21 PM »

Well, there is a difference.  From what I've gathered, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, in dialoguing with each other, have come to realise that, in spite of different ways of expression, they share substantially the same faith.  However, in dialoguing with Assyrians, both EO and OO have com to realise that, in spite of different ways of expression, they share substantially a different faith.  Again, no source for that, and I should've been in bed twenty minutes ago so I'm gonna make this quick.  Others are free to correct me on this.  

In what way is the Assyrian faith different from the Coptic Faith? Or the Greek Orthodox Faith? You say that the EO and OO have a different faith than the Assyrians, so I am wondering what exactly is so different?
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2004, 11:34:40 PM »

"THE HALLOWING OF MAR NESTORIUS, patriarch of Byzantium, which is the city of Constantinople, the unbloody martyr, persecuted for the truth of the orthodox confession." - http://www.cired.org/liturgy/nestorius.html


Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2004, 11:36:17 PM »

The case of the Assyrians is much different than the Oriental Orthodox.  But if you want to read up on the Assyrian theology, go to the cired website and read these documents: http://www.cired.org/east.html

I think a reading of Nestorius makes it clear that his theology, while not what he was accused of, was still wrong.

I like the Assyrians but the fact they commemorate Nestorius bothers me.  Also, they base their Christology on Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was actually a very good theologian, but who was condemned posthumously at Constantinople II (the Three Chapters--I don't think that was really the moving of the Holy Spirit but the moving of St Justinian!).  Anyway, Theodore I think can be understood "in an Orthodox manner" but it's a stretch to do that for ol' Nestorius.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,276


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2004, 11:37:09 PM »

Not being an expert on the Assyrians, I cannot tell you what the differences are.  I know what I've been taught; I also know that in the RCC's official theological opinion, what I've been taught about them is not entirely correct.  What I want to know is on what basis Catholics have concluded that the Assyrians are not heretics, and on what basis, if at all, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox still insist, contrary to what the RC's now believe, that Assyrians are Nestorians.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2004, 11:37:27 PM »

In what way is the Assyrian faith different from the Coptic Faith? Or the Greek Orthodox Faith? You say that the EO and OO have a different faith than the Assyrians, so I am wondering what exactly is so different?

Nestorius taught that the Word took a human and that the properties of divinity and humanity WERE NOT SHARED in reality (communicatio idomatum).

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2004, 11:43:59 PM »

But aren't there OO Saints that were condemned by Ecmenical Councils? Isn't OO christology based on those who were condemnd by the Church?

I'm asking cause I really don't know, not to start some anti-OO thread.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 11:51:09 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2004, 11:44:38 PM »

I found this REALLY interesting - http://www.cired.org/east/0303_nestorius_of_constantinople.pdf

All you EOs out there.....when you get chance read the article...its kinda long but very informative and interesting. lol....don't think I'm trying to turn you all in Nestorians, I just think it's an interesting article worth reading.

« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 11:46:39 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2004, 11:49:13 PM »

Nestorius taught that the Word took a human and that the properties of divinity and humanity WERE NOT SHARED in reality (communicatio idomatum).

anastasios

Then the Assyrians aren't Nestorians....read the comon declaration of faith between the Assyrians and the RCC.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2004, 11:52:57 PM »

Right, but they commemorate a heretic nevertheless.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2004, 11:53:26 PM »

PS I am interested in dialogue with the Assyrians but AFTER there is a union between EO and OO--no need to spread ourselves too thin!
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2004, 11:57:54 PM »

Right, but they commemorate a heretic nevertheless.

anastasios

Back to one of my previous questions, don't the OOs commemorate those who were condemened by the Ecumenical Councils? Aren't some of the OO saints considered heretics by the EO?

Once again, I'm asking because I don't know, not because I want to create some anti-OO thread
« Last Edit: May 12, 2004, 12:24:27 AM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Dimitrius
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


Orthodoxy is the way


WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2004, 01:23:18 AM »

Ben

You inquired about how the EO and OO view the Assyrian Church. You also wanted to know how the EO view certain OO saints and theologians, since both these churches are in the process of uniting.

First, please read the OO’s view of Nestorius and the Assyrian Church: http://www.britishorthodox.org/nestor.php

Next please read the article about the unfruitful dialogue between the OO and the Assyrian Church. In it is also mentioned the dialogue between the RC and the Assyrian Church  which the OO were invited to witness:  http://www.britishorthodox.org/assyrian.php

Regarding the dialogue between the EO and the OO, they have issued a declaration on common faith stating that each Church recognized that the other is a true Apostolic Orthodox Church that has maintained the faith. Here is the link of their joint decleration:
http://www.britishorthodox.org/2church.php

Note this section that allowed the two Churches to declare that they have the same Orthodox faith:

Quote
Throughout our discussions we have found our common ground in the formula of our common Father, St. Cyril of Alexandria : mia physis hypostasis (he mia hypostasis)[1] tou Theou Logou sesarkomene, and in the dictum that "it is sufficient for the confession of our true and irreproachable faith to say and to confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos" (Hom : 15, cf. Ep. 39).

Great indeed is the wonderful mystery of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one True God, one ousia in three hypostases or three prosopa. Blessed be the Name of the Lord our God, for ever and ever.

Great indeed is also the ineffable mystery of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, for us and for our salvation.
The Logos, eternally consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit in His Divinity, has in these last days, become incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Blessed Virgin Mary Theotokos, and thus became man, consubstantial with us in His humanity but without sin. He is true God and true Man at the same time, perfect in His Divinity, perfect in His humanity. Because the one she bore in her womb was at the same time fully God as well as fully human we call the Blessed Virgin Theotokos.

When we speak of the one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature, to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation (theoria) only.

The hypostasis of the Logos before the incarnation, even with His divine nature, is of course not composite. The same hypostasis, as distinct from nature, of the Incarnate Logos, is not composite either. The unique theandric person (prosopon) of Jesus Christ is one eternal hypostasis Who has assumed human nature by the Incarnation. So we call that hypostasis composite, on account of the natures which are united to form one composite unity. It is not the case that our Fathers used physis and hypostasis always interchangeably and confused the one with the other. The term hypostasis can be used to denote both the person as distinct from nature, and also the person with the nature, for a hypostasis never in fact exists without a nature.

It is the same hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally begotten from the Father Who in these last days became a human being and was born of the Blessed Virgin. This is the mystery of the hypostatic union we confess in humble adoration - the real union of the divine with the human, with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate Who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ.

Especially important to your question Ben about the Assyrian Church is the following from the joined declaration of faith between the EO and the OO:

Quote
We agree in condemning the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies. We neither separate nor divide the human nature in Christ from His divine nature, nor do we think that the former was absorbed in the latter and thus ceased to exist.

In their second agreed statement (also found in the article I linked to above) the two Churches had this to say about the Nestorian teachings:

Quote
2. Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God and by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature God, became by nature Man, by His Incarnation in the fullness of time.

6. Both families agree in rejecting interpretations of Councils which do not fully agree with the Horos of the Third Ecumenical Council and the letter (433) of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch.


 Regarding your question as to how the EO will view certain OO theologians and saints that were declared heretics, here is their agreed upon declaration:

Quote
9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.

10. Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.

We therefore recommend to our Churches the following practical steps :

A. The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Oriental Orthodox Councils and Fathers whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

B. The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Orthodox Councils and fathers, whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

C. The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by the Churches individually.

Again please read their entire joint declaration of faith that details how the two Churches came to these conclusions: http://www.britishorthodox.org/2church.php

Here is also a progress report on the joint commission between the EO and the OO: http://www.britishorthodox.org/progress.php


I hope this answers your questions Ben.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2004, 01:51:06 AM by Dimitrius » Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2004, 04:53:46 AM »

Hi Ben

I emailed the author of many of the articles at www.cired.org yesterday, Mar Bawai Soro, and I hope he is able to reply to me.

I found many of his articles stimulating and I believe his proposed methodology of seeking to get behind particular terminology and discover what is actually believed is necessary for all and any dialogue to be conducted in charity.

Although I find much of the information quite encouraging, really encouraging I mean, nevertheless, as I wrote to Mar Bawai, the use of the phrase 'two natures, two hypostases and one person', in whatever language it is presented is problematic.

But it is problematic because I am reading it with my understanding of what I think he means, not with his understanding of what he means. It may well be that we do have different Christologies, but there may also be many areas where disagreement is based on misunderstanding, and I'd like to take the time and effort to make sure that I at least am not perpetuating a stereotype of what a 'Nestorian heretic' should look like when in fact the reality is much more complex.

In fact the pov of the Assyrian Church is most interesting as it was reflected in the opinions of many of the Chalcedonian party between the time of St Cyril and into even the 8th century. I cannot understand this controversial period without seeking to understand those who still maintain what was an important thread in the doctrinal developments of that time.

Of course polemics would be easier but not so rewarding.

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2004, 12:30:24 PM »


Quote
You inquired about how the EO and OO view the Assyrian Church. You also wanted to know how the EO view certain OO saints and theologians, since both these churches are in the process of uniting.

Are they truly in the process of union? Will we see the union in our life time? And is there opposition to the Union? I am wondering how some of the more conservative jurisdictions, like ROCOR And the Orthodox Church of Greece - synod in resistance, views the process of union between the NCs and EOs.

Quote
First, please read the OO’s view of Nestorius and the Assyrian Church: http://www.britishorthodox.org/nestor.php

I don't have time right now, but when I get a chance I'll check out these links that you posted.

Quote
Next please read the article about the unfruitful dialogue between the OO and the Assyrian Church. In it is also mentioned the dialogue between the RC and the Assyrian Church  which the OO were invited to witness:  http://www.britishorthodox.org/assyrian.php

Will do....I'll read it as soon as I can...can't wait!  Smiley

Quote
Regarding the dialogue between the EO and the OO, they have issued a declaration on common faith stating that each Church recognized that the other is a true Apostolic Orthodox Church that has maintained the faith. Here is the link of their joint decleration:
http://www.britishorthodox.org/2church.php

Thanks for all the links!  Smiley Smiley

Quote
In their second agreed statement (also found in the article I linked to above) the two Churches had this to say about the Nestorian teachings

But the Assyrians are not Nestorians, read the comon Christological declaration between the Assyrian Church of the East and the RCC, I posted the link to it in this thread.

Quote
Regarding your question as to how the EO will view certain OO theologians and saints that were declared heretics, here is their agreed upon declaration:Again please read their entire joint declaration of faith that details how the two Churches came to these conclusions: http://www.britishorthodox.org/2church.php

Nestorius is an Assyrian Saint, and he was declared a Heretic, so can we hope that some day that won't matter because the Assyrians obviously don't follow his teachings  - again I refer you to the comon Christological declaration between the Assyrian Church of the East and the RCC.

Quote
Here is also a progress report on the joint commission between the EO and the OO: http://www.britishorthodox.org/progress.php

Thank you for all fo thinks, I really can't wait untill I have the time to check them all out!

It is interesting though that the Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Church can make a comon Christological declaration, but the Assyrian Church of the East and the Orthodox Churches can't.

In Christ,
Ben
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2004, 01:29:09 PM »

It is interesting though that the Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Church can make a comon Christological declaration, but the Assyrian Church of the East and the Orthodox Churches can't.

I would suggest that is because the West was always much more sympathetic to the Theodorean terminology which the Assyrian Church also uses. And the West also resisted the condemnation of the Three Chapters, a further indication of the underlying sympathy with what became the Assyrian mode of explaining Christology.

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2004, 05:40:30 PM »

I just received a very kind reply from Mar Bawai Soro of the Assyrians who has pointed me towards a knowledgeable member of his community with whom I hope to correspond.

I will try to go through the main issues that are problematic for the OO in relation to the Assyrians and maybe I'll post some of the fruits of my discussion here.

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2004, 06:27:17 PM »

Ben,

If the Assyrians do not follow Nestorius's teachings then why are his 12 anathemas against St Cyril posted on their website?

Those anathemas are blatently heretical.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2004, 07:47:18 PM »

Ben,

If the Assyrians do not follow Nestorius's teachings then why are his 12 anathemas against St Cyril posted on their website?

Those anathemas are blatently heretical.

anastasios

Well either the Assryians are orthodox in their Christology or their Church leaders lied.

Read the comon Christological declartion of 1994, between the Assyrian Church and the Catholic Church. As I said either they're not Nestorians, or they are Nestorian liars. Please, read the comon declaration and tell me if there is anything un-orthodox there, because if there isn't, and the RCC and the ACE really do share in the same faith, regarding Jesus Christ, then they are not Nestorians.

I have always thought that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were in agreement on Christological matters. This is why I am surprised that Rome can agree with the Assryians on Christ, but the EOs can't.

I am sure I am missing something, and I do admit that the Pope can be a little too much of an ecumenist at times, but if the Assyrians are in fact Nestorians then what is the signifcance of the comon Christological declaration with the RCC? Gosh, I sure hope the Catholic Church isn't teaching Nestorianism? Perhaps I should have named this thread "JOHN PAUL II IS A NESTORIAN!!!". Wink

In Christ,
Ben
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2004, 08:08:55 PM »

Ben,

I have read the document.  The point I am making is one document that glosses over some serious issues (such as Nestorius's anathemas) does not a "unified Christology" make.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,276


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2004, 08:18:29 PM »

Read the comon Christological declartion of 1994, between the Assyrian Church and the Catholic Church. As I said either they're not Nestorians, or they are Nestorian liars. Please, read the comon declaration and tell me if there is anything un-orthodox there, because if there isn't, and the RCC and the ACE really do share in the same faith, regarding Jesus Christ, then they are not Nestorians.

Dear Ben,

I must admit finding it very hard to discern what your actual position on the issues is based on your posts, because I see you say different things at different times.  For instance, I think it is very interesting that, while you seem to side with the EO on the question of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo and their acceptance by Oriental Orthodox in the other thread in this section, and this all being key to sharing the same faith, you are quite willing to accept, based on some Common Christological Declaration between Rome and Chicago, that the Assyrians are not Nestorians and share the same Christological faith as RC's (and thus, EO's), even though they venerate Nestorius as a saint, promote his twelve anathemas against Saint Cyril of Alexandria, and have not submitted to the Third Ecumenical Council or called Mary the Theotokos (and I have not heard anyone demand this either).  How do you justify looking at the substance of the belief of Assyrians and affirming their orthodoxy without asking any more, while not doing such for the Oriental Orthodox, but instead insisting on a council and  a papal bull (and I suppose the Tome would count as such to RC's)?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2004, 08:44:56 PM »

Ben,

I have read the document.  The point I am making is one document that glosses over some serious issues (such as Nestorius's anathemas) does not a "unified Christology" make.

anastasios

I am glad that you read the document.

My point is that if the Assyrians are truly Nestorians, then John Paul II wouldn't have signed a comon declaration of faith with them. I mean come on! Kissing the Qu'ran is one thing, but signing a comon declaration of faith with those who openly teach heresy?!

I realize that there is MUCH that still seperates the RCC and the ACE, but I do not think they are really divided on Christological matters.

If so, I do not think John Paul II would have signed that document, and I don't think the Vatican would premit Chaldean Catholics to recieve communion at Assryian churches and Assyrians to recieve communion at Chaldean Catholic churches in cases of emergency and nesscity (http://www.cired.org/cat/12_Addai_and_Mari_Anaphora_2001.pdf), if the Assyrians were really Nestorians.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2004, 10:10:09 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2004, 09:25:07 PM »

Quote
For instance, I think it is very interesting that, while you seem to side with the EO on the question of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo and their acceptance by Oriental Orthodox in the other thread in this section, and this all being key to sharing the same faith, you are quite willing to accept, based on some Common Christological Declaration between Rome and Chicago, that the Assyrians are not Nestorians and share the same Christological faith as RC's (and thus, EO's), even though they venerate Nestorius as a saint, promote his twelve anathemas against Saint Cyril of Alexandria, and have not submitted to the Third Ecumenical Council or called Mary the Theotokos (and I have not heard anyone demand this either).
 

The diference here is that I don't think anybody thinks that the NC's are monphysites. So why would I waste my time going on and on about how the NC's are in agreement with the reast of Christianity on matters of Christological beliefs?

My problem with the whole NC problem is that they claim to be Orthodox, yet they reject 4 Ecumenical Councils. I have always been told that 7 infallible Ecumenical Councils hold Orthodoxy together.  Even Bishop Ware says this in this book "The Orthodox Church". Eastern Orthodoxy is based on 7 Ecumenical Councils, they are the foundation of Orthodoxy, and I think there is a problem to call the NC's Orthodox if they reject what so many have told me is ESSENTIAL to the Orthodox faith.

However, the Assyrians don't claim to be Orthodox, they don't demand to be called "Orthodox". So why would I argue that the Assryaians aren't Orthodox, if they don't claim to be Orthodox? I'm just trying to get the point accross that the Assryian Christians of the East are not Nestorians, just as I would argue with anyone who says the NCs are Monophysites.


Quote
How do you justify looking at the substance of the belief of Assyrians and affirming their orthodoxy without asking any more, while not doing such for the Oriental Orthodox, but instead insisting on a council and  a papal bull (and I suppose the Tome would count as such to RC's)?
   

I am not trying to say that everything the Assryains believe is totally orthodox. I'm just trying to make the point that why are not Nestorians. This doesn't mean I don't think they are still seperated from the Church, or that I believe everything they do, and they believe everything I do, but we do share in same Christological faith. And I say this with the intense dialouge that has occured between the ACE and RCC, over the past 10 years, in mind.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2004, 10:05:38 PM »

Some day (maybe this summer) I will investigate this more fully. The Christological debates of the 5th century really interest me, and on a personal level I really like the Assyrians (I have visited their parish in NY 3 times).

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2004, 10:16:42 PM »

I also plan on investigating this more fully, but as of now, being a Catholic, I trust the Church.

I trust that the Pope wouldn't sign a comon Christological declaration with Nestorians. And I trust that the Vatican wouldn't allow Chaldean Catholics to recieve Nestorian Sacraments, and Nestorians to reive Catholic Sacraments, even if it was an emergency.

I actually plan on visiting an Assryian parish, and I have recently emailed an Assyrian bishop, I hope to learn more about their faith, but until then, I'll trust the Vatican.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #31 on: May 12, 2004, 11:26:31 PM »

Speaking of the Assyrians,

After this Christological agreement was signed, wasn't there a big stink made by some Catholics about there not being an epiclesis in their liturgy?

I seem to remember this, but I could be mistaken.

I think I also heard that they practice an open communion, to any baptized Christian, like the Anglicans do, is that true or am I confusing the Assyrians with another Church?

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2004, 12:24:45 AM »

No epiclesis?

I haven't heard this. But this wouldn't be a problem for Rome, for Rome doesn't believe it is the epiclesis that transforms the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but when the preist says "THIS IS MY BODY"....."THIS IS MY BLOOD".

It may also interest you to know that the Assryian Litrugy is one of the oldest in existence, it predates Nestorius.

I do not think they give communion to any baptized Christian, because as it states in the document I posted a link to, that Chaldean Catholics can recieve Communion in Assryian churches only when there is a pastoral nessecity. But you know that may just be Rome saying that only in a time of nessecity, and not the Assryian Church.

I really don't know...but I'll look into it.

In Christ,
Ben
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2004, 12:32:42 AM »

There is an epiclesis--but no institution narrative.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2004, 12:33:13 AM »

Assyrians commune any Christian that believes the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.  I know this from personal experience.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2004, 12:39:26 AM »

There is an epiclesis--but no institution narrative.

Ah yes I remember hearing this!

That is very interesting, however it makes their Eucharist no less-valid.

Communes anyone who believes in the Eucharistic?
Hmmm interesting.

Thank God it was just a comon CHRISTOLOGICAL declaration, and not one that included all aspects of the faith.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2004, 12:41:10 AM »

Quote
No epiclesis?

I haven't heard this. But this wouldn't be a problem for Rome, for Rome doesn't believe it is the epiclesis that transforms the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but when the preist says "THIS IS MY BODY"....."THIS IS MY BLOOD".

Rome wasn't the one making an issue out of it, it was individual Catholics, especially those in the Traditional circles.

I was merely asking if it was true that there wasn't one, or merely a slanderous accusation.

Quote
It may also interest you to know that the Assryian Litrugy is one of the oldest in existence, it predates Nestorius.

Yup, that is interesting.

Quote
I do not think they give communion to any baptized Christian, because as it states in the document I posted a link to, that Chaldean Catholics can recieve Communion in Assryian churches only when there is a pastoral nessecity. But you know that may just be Rome saying that only in a time of nessecity, and not the Assryian Church.

I can't say for sure one way or another, I just thought I recalled hearing it, so I was hoping someone here knew.

Anybody?

Quote
I really don't know...but I'll look into it.

K.

Be sure to post your findings here!

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #37 on: May 13, 2004, 12:51:55 AM »

Quote
Rome wasn't the one making an issue out of it, it was individual Catholics, especially those in the Traditional circles.


I know what you meant. I was trying to point out that this wouldn't be a problem with Rome or it wouldn't contradict offical Catholic teaching, because Rome puts the emphasis on the words of the priest: THIS IS MY BODY...etc. But whether the words of the instituion narrative, or an epiclesis, or both, it doesn't matter. Rome excepts all as a valid way to consencrated the bread and the wine. As long as the priest is validly ordained in a Church that has apostolic succession.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,276


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 13, 2004, 09:05:06 AM »

But whether the words of the instituion narrative, or an epiclesis, or both, it doesn't matter. Rome excepts all as a valid way to consencrated the bread and the wine. As long as the priest is validly ordained in a Church that has apostolic succession.

But historically, this wasn't the case, was it?  For instance, when the Syrian and Malankara Catholics went under Rome, anaphorae which did not contain the institution narrative were either not allowed, or had it added in.  The same happened with the Malabar Catholics, whose liturgy is based on the Assyrian rite...and I think they had their institution narrative added word for word from the Roman Canon.  It doesn't seem that the attitude you express above is one Rome has always held.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 13, 2004, 09:20:10 AM »

I am not calling the Assyrian Church "Nestorian" because I am trying to understand what they teach not impose my understanding.

But Mar Bawai Soro, in his article "Is the Theology of the Church of the East Nestorian?" says:

The question before us - whether the theology of the Church of the East is Nestorian or not - can be quickly answered if one is asking whether that Church holds to the same Christological formulae as the historical figure Nestorius. The philosophical terms employed by Nestorius to describe the incarnate Christ - two natures and two hypostases in one prosopon - are also employed by the theologians of the Church of the East......If the question 'Does the Church of the East venerate Nestorius and continue to employ his theological vocabulary?' then the answer is obvious. However if the question is whether the Church of the East is 'Nestorian' the answer is not so evident. Was Nestorius himself a heretic as that heresy is universally understood and described?"

Later in the article an historic document is referenced which condemns anyone who condemns Theodore of Mopsuestia - in challenge to the 5th EO council.

Now of course it is necessary to look at these things in perspective and context. Although the use of 'two hypostases' rings bells it is important I seek to understand what is meant by that phrase, so I will be studying and hopefull corresponding with some Assyrians.

But I would suggest that the Assyrians themselves consider that they do use Nestorius' terminology and argue that his condemnation was mistaken and based on a misunderstanding rather than on any real error.

I am not sure that the EO and OO have gone far enough in their dialogues with the Assyrians to be comfortable that this was the case.

Obviously either the Pope has gone further in dialogue, or the Nestorian terminology is not so problematic for Roman Catholicism, or the Joint Statement is a marker in the ground not the last word.

The practice of communion is a more definite statement of agreement, but though I have seen a lot of interesting materials by the Assyrians, I am not sure I have read a similarly detailed response to these matters from the RC side. I don't think the Assyrians have been lying. I might think that perhaps things have been rushed by an aging ecumenically minded Pope.

But then there are issues remaining between EO and OO yet intercommunion still takes place. There are issues between EO churches yet communion is maintained, and between OO churches and likewise. Communion is a sign of unity in faith, but it is not an absolute sign otherwise none of us would be in communion. It is a sign of good enough agreement. How far that agreement is necessary is a matter of economy. (I am not advocating communion in disagreement, but if there is agreement in the substance of our faith then some other things can be matters of further dialogue without needing to preclude communion)

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #40 on: May 13, 2004, 01:03:28 PM »

But historically, this wasn't the case, was it?  For instance, when the Syrian and Malankara Catholics went under Rome, anaphorae which did not contain the institution narrative were either not allowed, or had it added in.  The same happened with the Malabar Catholics, whose liturgy is based on the Assyrian rite...and I think they had their institution narrative added word for word from the Roman Canon.  It doesn't seem that the attitude you express above is one Rome has always held.  

I admit that my knowledge on this issue if very limited, and for that reason, all I will say is that the Catholic Church teaches the Assryian sacraments to be valid. Has this always been taught by the Catholic Church or is it a post-Vat II development? Honestly, I don't know. But I would be interested to see if there are any Papal Bulls on the Blessed Sacrament in those churches that do not have an institution narative in their liturgy.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #41 on: May 13, 2004, 01:26:42 PM »



Quote
But I would suggest that the Assyrians themselves consider that they do use Nestorius' terminology and argue that his condemnation was mistaken and based on a misunderstanding rather than on any real error
.

This may very well be the case.

Quote
Obviously either the Pope has gone further in dialogue, or the Nestorian terminology is not so problematic for Roman Catholicism, or the Joint Statement is a marker in the ground not the last word.

I honestly don't think that the Pope would a sign a comon Christological declaration with a Nestorian. And if you read the declaration, you will see that the faith expressed is truly orthodox.....

" Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his
divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united
in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In
him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity,
with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting “one
and another”, the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same
and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single
adoration."


and further along in the document it states.....

"The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of Christ our God and Savior”. In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of God” and also as “the Mother of Christ”. We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety."

and it goes on to say...

"Whatever our Christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves
united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became
man so that we might become children of God by his grace. We wish from now
on to witness together to this faith in the One who is the Way, the Truth and the
Life, proclaiming it in appropriate ways to our contemporaries, so that the world
may believe in the Gospel of salvation."


Both John Paul II and His Holines Mar Dinkha IV signed this document. And I do not think these two devout and holy men would have signed such a document a document if it were not true.

Quote
I might think that perhaps things have been rushed by an aging ecumenically minded Pope.

I agree with you some what, but even His Holiness has limits. I do not think he would compromise the faith in such a away. And notice nothing in the comon declaration was against Catholic teaching, so if there is anything in there that does not represent Assryian teaching then we have His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV to blame for being a little to "ecumenicaly minded".
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #42 on: May 13, 2004, 01:53:47 PM »

Dear All:

I am not as qualified as Fr. Deacon Lance in presenting the Catholic Church's perspective on the "Common Declaration" between the RCC and the ACE.

However, I know for a fact that the continuing dialogue between these two Churches have been going on for as long as the dialogues between the RCC and the EOs and between the RCC and the OOs.

The Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East share a common theology and history (close relatives are on both sides) and it is not, therefore, surprising that the RCC could sign a "common" Christological declaration with the Assyrians.

Interested parties should read the "Guidelines" issued in 2001, which treats the "orthodoxy" of the Assyrian "Anaphora," at:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

Amado
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #43 on: May 13, 2004, 02:05:25 PM »



Quote
However, I know for a fact that the continuing dialogue between these two Churches have been going on for as long as the dialogues between the RCC and the EOs and between the RCC and the OOs.

I agree, but there is a very great significance in the RCC making a comon declaration of faith about anything with a Church that many consider to be Nestorian or at least semi-Nestorian.

Quote
The Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East share a common theology and history (close relatives are on both sides) and it is not, therefore, surprising that the RCC could sign a "common" Christological declaration with the Assyrians.

Once again I agree, but I think that the issue of the Assryians being Nestorians or not, makes this comon declaration all the more interesting and controversial.

Quote
Interested parties should read the "Guidelines" issued in 2001, which treats the "orthodoxy" of the Assyrian "Anaphora," at:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

Thanks for the link!

In Christ,
Ben

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #44 on: May 13, 2004, 02:08:21 PM »

Ah yes...thanks for this link, I posted a link to this same document earlier in this threat, but to the Assryian site. I find it to be quite interesting, to say the least.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2004, 02:14:23 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #45 on: May 13, 2004, 02:46:23 PM »

Ben:

Although the Assyrians accept only the first two Ecumenical Councils, recent ecumenical discussions among Churches of the Syriac Tradition held under the auspices of the Pro Oriente Foundation have concluded that, in substance, the faith of the Assyrian Church is consistent with the Christological teaching of the Council of Chalcedon (451).

Officially the ACE adheres to extreme Antiochian Christological terminology, according to which in Christ there are two natures and two qnoma (a Syriac term with no Greek equivalent that refers to an individual but never personalized concrete nature) in one person.

I think the ACE's synod of bishops has requested that their Church not be called "Nestorian," since this term has been used in the past to insult them.

See http://www.cired.org/east.html

Amado
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 13, 2004, 03:55:08 PM »

Hi Ben

The Assyrians do use the terminology of 'two hypostases'. This is the key point for me. It is not without explication. But it is the key phrase. The head of Ecumenical matters for the Assyrians, Mar Bawai Soro uses it extensively.

Its not a problem. But I need to know what is meant.

Did Pope JPII issue any material explaining how he understands the phrase 'two hypostases'?

Peter

Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #47 on: May 13, 2004, 11:40:39 PM »



Quote
Although the Assyrians accept only the first two Ecumenical Councils, recent ecumenical discussions among Churches of the Syriac Tradition held under the auspices of the Pro Oriente Foundation have concluded that, in substance, the faith of the Assyrian Church is consistent with the Christological teaching of the Council of Chalcedon (451).


If this is true (which I suspect it is, otherwise why would John Paul II sign such a declaration?), then the Assryians are not Nestorians, and we can move foward in the process of union between the two churches.

Quote
Officially the ACE adheres to extreme Antiochian Christological terminology, according to which in Christ there are two natures and two qnoma (a Syriac term with no Greek equivalent that refers to an individual but never personalized concrete nature) in one person.


This may be the problem, and I would love to better understand their Christological terminology.

Quote
I think the ACE's synod of bishops has requested that their Church not be called "Nestorian," since this term has been used in the past to insult them.


Well, of couse. "Nestorian" has a lot of baggage with it, and is commonly used to insult the Assryian Church and their faith.

Quote

Yes, this is a very imformative website.

In Christ,
Ben
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #48 on: May 13, 2004, 11:52:57 PM »



Quote
Did Pope JPII issue any material explaining how he understands the phrase 'two hypostases'?

I do not know, perhaps someone else does. But I really do not think that the Pope signed that declaration without knowing what the Assryian Church teaches, and what they mean by "two hypostases". I really doubt that H.H. John Paul II and his H.H. Mar Dinkha IV are so ecumenicaly minded that they would dimiss their Christological differences for the sake of unity. The declaration states that presently the Churches have no Christological differences, and this is a wonderful progression towards the union between the two Churches.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #49 on: May 14, 2004, 02:41:56 AM »

I hope there's a time when Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Asyrians and Catholics, will have at least a spiritual communion and common sacraments, as Apostolic Churches.... but there are some things that I find very demagogical in the common declaration:

Quote
“Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise, and intercession.”

Is this believable? How is this, they're present invisibly but they're not present at all? Isn't it better to say that the "institution narrative" is not, after all, the condition si ne qua non of having a valid consecration? This sounds very demagogical.

Quote
When Chaldean faithful are participating in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Assyrian minister is warmly invited to insert the words of the Institution

 Cheesy hahaha, I wonder if someone will take this seriously when celebrating mass.

Leaving the Nestorian issue aside, which has been proved to be more a problem of terminology, the Assyrian Church has departed from the orthodox faith and has compromised with Protestantism. This is understandable, due to the isolation and persecution that the Assyrians have suffered.

They have signed agreements with the Anglicans and even permit Asyrians to attend the Episcopal services that are not valid at all. In Sweden they even allow them to attend Lutheran services. Some have accepted married bishops and divorce for the clergy.



Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 14, 2004, 07:29:45 AM »

"the faith of the Assyrian Church is consistent with the Christological teaching of the Council of Chalcedon (451)."

This is why the OO broke off dialogue for a while with the RC's and this is why Chalcedon was rejected from the beginning.

I am not saying that Chalcedon is of necessity, but it is certainly liable of a Theodoran interpretation. We know that Theodoret said that his Christology had won the day at Chalcedon, and we know that Nestorius said that the Tome expressed his Christology.

I am interested in the passage about "qnoma" posted a bit further above. That is a very interesting and possibly encouraging sentence.

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #51 on: May 14, 2004, 10:47:37 AM »

Mexican,

"Is this believable?" -I think so.

"How is this, they're present invisibly but they're not present at all?" -Read below.

"Isn't it better to say that the 'institution narrative' is not, after all, the condition si ne qua non of having a valid consecration?" -Not from the Latin Church's point of view. Considering that every extent Anaphora, East and West except those of Mar Addai and Mar Mari of the Assyrians/Chaldeans and that of Peter III of the Syriacs/Maronites, includes the Institution Narrative and the importance of the Institution Narrative in those traditions especially the Latin, even while recognizing the East believes the Consecration isn't complete until the Epiclesis the Latin Church needed this explanation.

Fr. Deacon Lance

"Finally, it must be observed that the eastern and western Eucharistic Anaphoras, while expressing the same mystery, have different theological, ritual and linguistic traditions. The words of the Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession. All these elements constitute a “quasi-narrative” of the Eucharistic Institution. In the central part of the Anaphora, together with the Epiclesis, explicit references are made to the eucharistic Body and Blood of Jesus Christ
 
(“O my Lord, in thy manifold and ineffable mercies, make a good and gracious remembrance for all the upright and just fathers who were pleasing before thee, in the commemoration of the body and blood of thy Christ, which we offer to thee upon the pure and holy altar, as thou hast taught us”)

to the life-giving mystery of Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection, which is actually commemorated and celebrated

(“that all the inhabitants of the world may know thee ... and we also, O my Lord, thy unworthy, frail and miserable servants who are gathered and stand before thee, and have received by tradition the example which is from thee, rejoicing and glorifying and exalting and commemorating and celebrating this great and awesome mystery of the passion and death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ”),
 
to the eucharistic offering for the forgiveness of the sins, to the eschatological dimension of the eucharistic celebration and to the Lord’s command to 'do this in memory of me'
 
(“And let thy Holy Spirit come, O my Lord, and rest upon this offering of thy servants, and bless it and sanctify it that it my be to us, O my Lord, for the pardon of sins, and for the forgiveness of shortcomings, and for the great hope of the resurrection from the dead, and for new life in the kingdom of heaven with all who have been pleasing before thee”).

So the words of the Institution are not absent in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, but explicitly mentioned in a dispersed way, from the beginning to the end, in the most important passages of the Anaphora. It is also clear that the passages cited above express the full conviction of commemorating the Lord’s paschal mystery, in the strong sense of making it present; that is, the intention to carry out in practice precisely what Christ established by his words and actions in instituting the Eucharist."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html


Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #52 on: May 14, 2004, 12:56:48 PM »




Quote
I am interested in the passage about "qnoma" posted a bit further above. That is a very interesting and possibly encouraging sentence.

I am also interested in this, I would love to learn more.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 14, 2004, 01:45:39 PM »

If I get anything interesting through contacts with Assyrians I'll keep you in the loop, Ben

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,704


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 14, 2004, 04:20:36 PM »

They have signed agreements with the Anglicans and even permit Asyrians to attend the Episcopal services that are not valid at all. In Sweden they even allow them to attend Lutheran services. Some have accepted married bishops and divorce for the clergy.

Very disturbing. :'(
Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #55 on: May 15, 2004, 04:20:32 AM »

If I get anything interesting through contacts with Assyrians I'll keep you in the loop, Ben

Please do!  Smiley
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #56 on: May 15, 2004, 04:22:46 AM »

Mexican....

What kind of agreements have the Assryians made with the Anglicans? If we're just talking Christological agreements, or stuff like that, then I don't see a problem.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2004, 11:26:09 PM »


*bump*

Quote
I also plan on investigating this more fully, but as of now, being a Catholic, I trust the Church.

I trust that the Pope wouldn't sign a comon Christological declaration with Nestorians. And I trust that the Vatican wouldn't allow Chaldean Catholics to recieve Nestorian Sacraments, and Nestorians to reive Catholic Sacraments, even if it was an emergency.

I actually plan on visiting an Assryian parish, and I have recently emailed an Assyrian bishop, I hope to learn more about their faith, but until then, I'll trust the Vatican.


Hey Ben,

Just wondering if you had visited an Assyrian Church yet, as well as to inquire if you had heard back from their bishop and what kind of fruits your contact with him bore.

Please post an update!

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #58 on: June 07, 2004, 01:01:04 AM »

I did email an Assryian bishop but it didn't work. I got a delivery failure notification. As for visiting an Assryian church, I still gotta visit a Coptic, ROAC, and OCA parish in the near future, so I'll just have to see.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #59 on: June 07, 2004, 01:30:20 AM »

Quote
I did email an Assryian bishop but it didn't work. I got a delivery failure notification.

Don'tcha hate it when that happens? I am sure that you might be able to get in contact with another Assyrian bishop if you try, if not try getting in touch with an Assyrian priest - maybe he can help you out. If at first you don't succeed.....

Quote
I still gotta visit a Coptic, ROAC, and OCA parish in the near future, so I'll just have to see.

I really enjoyed my visit to a Coptic church, I would definately recommend that you go and experience worshipping with them first hand!  Cheesy

I'm surprised that you haven't already visited an OCA church yet! See if you can attend Vespers on a Saturday night, I am sure you would enjoy it!

I am not sure what language the liturgy will be in in a ROAC church, perhaps it varies by church? There aren't any ROAC churches anywhere near me, but I have been to both Vespers and the Divine Liturgy at a GOC (Chyrosotomos Synod) church and found them to be quite reverant. Both were in Greek, so I didn't understand a word of it, but I can tell you that their liturgy was longer than at any GOA parish I have been to. If you ever find yourself in the neighborhood of a church of the GOC (www.thegreekorthodoxchurch.com), I'd say you should visit there as well.

I also don't know how feasible it is because of your location, but perhaps there might be a Cyprianite GOC (this group is in fullcomunion with the ROCOR - so they're canonical) or a parish of the Jerusalem Patriarchate near you. You might want to look into that and give them a visit too.

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #60 on: June 07, 2004, 01:44:55 AM »

ROAC - they use English. And there is no GOC or JP parishes in my area.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2004, 12:18:41 AM »

Mexican,

Quote
Is this believable? How is this, they're present invisibly but they're not present at all? Isn't it better to say that the "institution narrative" is not, after all, the condition si ne qua non of having a valid consecration? This sounds very demagogical.

I don't think they can say that, since it goes against the scholastic definition of "valid form" for the eucharist which became enshrined in Roman Catholic dogmatics.  The "words of institution" are believed to be part of the essential form, in Catholicism.  Hence, the rather stretched reasoning.  I agree, it is silly.

Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #62 on: June 09, 2004, 11:42:51 PM »

Mexican,I don't think they can say that, since it goes against the scholastic definition of "valid form" for the eucharist which became enshrined in Roman Catholic dogmatics.  The "words of institution" are believed to be part of the essential form, in Catholicism.  Hence, the rather stretched reasoning.  I agree, it is silly.



Honestly, I agree, it is sily.

From an email my Roman Catholic priest sent me on this topic, after I asked his opinion on this most concerning issue:

I was also able to read the explanation (apologetic?) published by the Pontifical Council For Promoting Christian Unity.
 
Their guidelines openly admit that the Council of Florence clearly and definitively states that the Holy Eucharist is confected solely by the Words of Institution, i.e. the words of Consecration, which are pronounced by the priest speaking in the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  This and this alone is the means of celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass and bringing the Blessed Sacrament on the altar.  They also state that the Anaphora (Canon) of the Assyrians lacks such a ritual.  
 
There is no getting around it.  No attempt at circumventing, talking around or explaining away this inescapable truth can make the impossible possible.  Words do not change the reality.  Their "Mass" is hopelessly invalid and cannot be regarded as in some magical way making the Eucharist present because in a general way their Canon basically and in a round about way intends the same thing.  Matter and Form are indispensable for the Sacraments.  Without their uniting in a simultaneous way there can be no sacrament.  That is a truth no Catholic can deny.  If the Assyrian Canon does not contain the Words of Consecration said over the bread (and it does not), the necessary conclusion is that they have no Mass.  This is true no matter who pronounces to the contrary.  No further comment is needed.

 

 


Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
ambrosemzv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


Pray unto God for us, Holy Ambrose of Optino!


« Reply #63 on: June 10, 2004, 06:41:23 AM »

Ben, you keep on insisting "the Assyrian Church is not Nestorian," apparently out of your desire to reassure yourself that the pope of Rome could not have made any sort of doctrinal error in this or any other matter.  But, you still haven't made it clear what you think the term, "Nestorian" means.  The Assyrians, according to their own hierarch, revere Nestorius, consider him a saint, and hold that his writings were, in no respect, heretical.  So, let's see:  They follow Nestorius and believe in his writings.  Sounds like "Nestorian" would be a pretty fair description.  The real issue, obviously, is:  Was Nestorius a heretic, or not?  The fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus thought so; the Church has taught so for thousands of years, but John Paul II says, "no."  Obviously, for the Orthodox, the latter fact doesn't matter anywhere near as much as it does for you, though it's worth our investigation.

A lot of the differences between the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholicism on this issue seems to have to do with how we regard the authority of Ecumenical Councils.  The Roman Church tends to be much more cavalier about the interpretation of Conciliar degrees and about their degree of authority, since, in Roman practice, the bishop of Rome has been granted the power to re-interpret, recognize, or refuse to recognize Councils as he sees fit.  As usual, it's all about the pope.

But, frankly, that's your problem, not ours.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2004, 06:49:49 AM by ambrosemzv » Logged

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne comprend pas.  -Pascal
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #64 on: June 10, 2004, 09:54:33 AM »

"The real issue, obviously, is:  Was Nestorius a heretic, or not?  The fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus thought so; the Church has taught so for thousands of years, but John Paul II says, "no."

Lets rephrase:

The real issue, obviously, is:  Was Dioscorus/Severus a heretic, or not?  The fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon thought so; the Church has taught so for thousands of years, but Patriarch (Name) says, "no.

So why the double standard for Assyrians?  The Assyrians believe Christ has two qnoma and one prospon.  The definitions differ but the substance is the same and I believe the same of the Orientals.  Why are the Orthodox willing to make concessions for the Orientals but not the Assyrians?  I believe because the Assyrians are closer to the Catholics than the Orthodox so they get the cold shoulder.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #65 on: June 10, 2004, 09:57:35 AM »

Ben

"From an email my Roman Catholic priest sent me on this topic, after I asked his opinion on this most concerning issue"

To bad his opinion means squat.  One can find a priest with opinions differing from the official teaching of the Church on any issue, yet they are all still wrong.  Get away from the Ultramontanes Ben.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ambrosemzv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


Pray unto God for us, Holy Ambrose of Optino!


« Reply #66 on: June 10, 2004, 10:42:15 AM »

Fr. Deacon Lance, I am actually quite reserved about embracing the NCs as fully Orthodox, until and unless they are able to affirm the dogmatic decrees of Chalcedon, apart from those condemning specific individuals.  True, I think a way forward might include a lifting of "non-essential" anathemas against individuals whose heresy is debatable.  We know that even fully Ecumenical Councils are not always inerrant in the latter respect:  take Origen as a case in point (some of his beliefs, at least at points in his life, were clearly heretical, but most Orthodox and Catholic scholars agree he did not in fact appear to believe many of the things attributed to him by the Fifth EC).

When it comes to Nestorius, that seems more problematic.  From what I've read, there is little consensus even among Western scholars who have engaged in serious dialogue with the Church of the East that Nestorius was not actually heretical.

Perhaps many contemporary Nestorians have come to understand and use the language of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestian in orthodox ways.  Perhaps that language was always susceptible of orthodox meaning, and was actually expressed by some Nestorians through the ages in orthodox ways.  Perhaps not.

In any case, further dialogue and study appear to be required, and the abrupt statement by any Orthodox patriarch would not change that, nor be met by many Orthodox being willing to say, "well, they must not be really Nestorian, because Patriarch So-and-So has declared them to be orthodox in their Christology."  Which was my point in the earlier posting.
Logged

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne comprend pas.  -Pascal
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #67 on: June 10, 2004, 10:46:03 AM »

Ben:

Between the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the opinion(s) of a Catholic priest,  no Catholic worth his salt can overturn it nor supplant it.

A conscientious objection to a magisterial teaching is allowed only so far as it is reasonable. Beyond that, it becomes obduracy not worthy of charitable consideration.

Amado

P.S.

I presume that that "Roman Catholic priest" is SSPX?

Logged
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #68 on: June 10, 2004, 10:55:30 AM »

Ambrosemzv:

Pope John Paul II's pronouncements re the Assyrians' Christology does not concern that of the Orthodox.

To the Catholic Church the Assyrians have acquitted themselves; thus, the common declaration on Christology.

Otherwise, the Chaldean Catholic Church is put in a bind now that she has established intercommunion with the Assyrian Church of the East.

Amado
Logged
ambrosemzv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


Pray unto God for us, Holy Ambrose of Optino!


« Reply #69 on: June 10, 2004, 11:13:34 AM »

Amadeus, good points all.  But, I was addressing Ben's repeated assertion, on an Orthodox board, that the Assyrian Church of the East could not be Nestorian, because the Roman Pope had signed off on a joint (RC and C of the E) document on Christology.  Ben's entitled to his opinion, of course, but he seem to think that that sort of argument is going to be persuasive to the Orthodox, which I find curious.
Logged

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne comprend pas.  -Pascal
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #70 on: June 10, 2004, 11:43:55 AM »

Ambrosemzv:

Understood.

The issue is not whether the Assyrians are "Orthodox or not!"

Rather, are they Christians "good enough" to be considered catholic and apostolic?

The Catholic Church, through His Holiness, Pope John Paull II, thinks they are!

To us Catholics, Rome has spoken (and will speak again on this matter in the forseeable future! Wink)

Amado
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #71 on: June 10, 2004, 03:59:59 PM »

Ben, you keep on insisting "the Assyrian Church is not Nestorian," apparently out of your desire to reassure yourself that the pope of Rome could not have made any sort of doctrinal error in this or any other matter.

As I have stated again and again in this thread, the comon christological declaration, signed by the Pope and H.H. Mar Dinkha IV, contains no errors. It is 100% Catholic teaching. So, as I have said before, either the Assyrians are not Nestorians, or they are liars and entered into a false agreement.

As for what my priest, who is *not* SSPX, had to say about the Assyrian liturgy, it was 100% in line with the Council of Florence, which is considered to be infallible by the Catholic Church, and Catholic doctrine.

Documents, papal encyclicals, or papal opinions, can not change Catholic doctrine or the declarations of Ecumenical Councils. You can say my priest is not in line with the teachings or opinions of H.H. John Paul II, but you can not say he isn't in line with Catholic teaching.

I urge you all to read the declarations of the Council of Florence and Trent, and examine the offical Catholic doctrine on this issue, and you will see my priest made no error in his evaluation of this critical issue.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #72 on: June 10, 2004, 04:21:55 PM »

Ben,

Only the Magesterium of the Church can interpret its own pronouncements past and present.  I am familiar with Florence and Trent and they were not even aware of the Assyrian Anaphora so how could they make an infallible pronouncemet with out all the evidence?  They were under the impression that all Anphora for all time included the Words of Institution Narrative and made the best pronouncemnet they could.  The Pope is completely within his rights to review something with new evidence and make a pronouncement.  It is the so called "traditionalist" priests like your friend who pay lip service to loyalty and obedience to the Holy Father all the while rejecting his rulings that don't agree with their narrow Ultarmontane Latin superiorist views.  They are selective sedevacantists accepting and rejecting what they want just as liberal dissenters do and they are no better.  You would do well to avoid them before they drag you into their errors.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #73 on: June 10, 2004, 07:13:00 PM »

Quote
Only the Magesterium of the Church can interpret its own pronouncements past and present.


Yes, to a point, but the Magesterium can not reject or ignore Catholic teaching and doctrines given to us by the Ecumenical Councils.

Quote
I am familiar with Florence and Trent and they were not even aware of the Assyrian Anaphora so how could they make an infallible pronouncemet with out all the evidence?  


According to Catholic teaching these councils were prevented from all error by the Holy Ghost, period.

Quote
They were under the impression that all Anphora for all time included the Words of Institution Narrative and made the best pronouncemnet they could.  The Pope is completely within his rights to review something with new evidence and make a pronouncement.
 

Any pronouncement made by anyone should be ignored if it conflicts with the doctrines of the Church.

The Holy Father's opinions are *not* infallible, and it is obvious that they are not, esp when they contradict the teaching of the Church. The reason why the Catholic Church has so many traditionalist groups is because so many faithful Catholics watch daily as the Holy Father, their Bishops and priests destroy the Catholic faith by rejecting, ignoring, and changing the teachings of the Church. Doctrines and Dogmas can not be ignored or rejected, but they can be reinterpreted, but only to a point. There comes a time when you have reinterpreted a dogma so far that it is nothing near what it was originally.

Quote
It is the so called "traditionalist" priests like your friend who pay lip service to loyalty and obedience to the Holy Father all the while rejecting his rulings that don't agree with their narrow Ultarmontane Latin superiorist views.
 

I am sorry but these priests, like my priest, are only trying to preserve the Catholic faith. The faith held by all the Saints and Popes before the tagic post-Vat II reforms. If you disgaree with those who are trying to preserve the faith and provide sound Catholic teaching to their parishoneers, and if you feel their views are nothing more than "narror Ultramontane Latin superiorist views" then you must feel the same about some of the greatest Roman Catholic Saints! Those who defended and died for the faith that these traditionalist priests are trying to preserve.

It is truly sad that you are soo wrapped up in the post- Vat II teachings and falsehoods that you are blind to the past, blind to the fact that not even 100 years ago you sure wouldn't have been happy in the Catholic Church.

If you want to insult the faith of millions of Saints and the dogmas of the Catholic Church by saying they are nothing more than "narrow Ultramontane Latin superiorist views" then go ahead, may God be the judge.

Quote
They are selective sedevacantists accepting and rejecting what they want just as liberal dissenters do and they are no better.


Do you know what a sedevacantist is?

The vast majority of traditionalists are *not* sedevacantists. Sedevacantists are no better than liberal dissenters, they are schismatics and their sacraments are truly in doubt, who knows if they are valid or not. I surely do not take advice from Sedevacntist priests, never have, never will.

Please do not somehow think sedevacantist and traditionalist mean the same thing!

In Christ,
Ben

P.S. - Fr. Deacon Lance, we have gone way off topic, I would love to continue this discussion by private message or email if you wish Smiley
« Last Edit: June 10, 2004, 07:19:44 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,276


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #74 on: June 10, 2004, 07:34:26 PM »

Please keep the part of this discussion relating more specifically to the Roman Catholic Church separate from this thread.  You could start another thread, which I think could be interesting, or you could continue via PM.  Thanks!

Why are the Orthodox willing to make concessions for the Orientals but not the Assyrians?  I believe because the Assyrians are closer to the Catholics than the Orthodox so they get the cold shoulder.

I don't think one can say that the EO are "willing to make concessions" for the OO, but that is besides the point.  Why do you think that EO "suspicion" of the Assyrians is a result of the former's distaste for the Roman Catholic Church, in your opinion?  Why can't it be simply that the EO see certain problems with the Assyrians that they do not with the OO (and even this is not really the whole story)?  Is all EO policy made with Roman Catholicism in mind?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #75 on: June 10, 2004, 09:10:29 PM »

"Why do you think that EO "suspicion" of the Assyrians is a result of the former's distaste for the Roman Catholic Church, in your opinion?"

Because the situation is the same.  Both use terminology not used by the Chalcedonians, both honor men anathematized by the Chlacedonians, yet for the Non-Chalcedonians some Eastern Orthodox are willing to say the substance of the faith is the same to the point of allowing intercommunion. Also their ignoring of the Polish National Catholic Church, which by EO's own standards meets all the requirements they claim to require of Rome for Reunion namely rejection of Councils past the 7th, the Filioque, and obviously Papal Infallibilty and Supremacy.  The only common denominator between the Assyrian Church and the PNCC is both have close relations with Catholic Church and intercommunion with her.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Rustaveli
Constant In Opal... Ultramarine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Eastern Church
Posts: 126


Saint Shota Rustaveli


« Reply #76 on: June 10, 2004, 09:33:29 PM »

Wow! "narrow Ultarmontane Latin superiorist views" and "selective sedevacantists"!

... brilliant wordcrafting (and exceptional alliteration), but this is a tough room!

As I fear the wrath of the wielder of Anduril, I shall retreat into the Chalcedonian forests.

Peace, ya'll!

Tin+¦viel elvanui
Elleth alfirin edhelhael
O hon ring finnil fuinui
A renc gelebrin thiliol...
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #77 on: June 10, 2004, 09:54:15 PM »

"Why do you think that EO "suspicion" of the Assyrians is a result of the former's distaste for the Roman Catholic Church, in your opinion?"

Because the situation is the same.  Both use terminology not used by the Chalcedonians, both honor men anathematized by the Chlacedonians, yet for the Non-Chalcedonians some Eastern Orthodox are willing to say the substance of the faith is the same to the point of allowing intercommunion. Also their ignoring of the Polish National Catholic Church, which by EO's own standards meets all the requirements they claim to require of Rome for Reunion namely rejection of Councils past the 7th, the Filioque, and obviously Papal Infallibilty and Supremacy.  The only common denominator between the Assyrian Church and the PNCC is both have close relations with Catholic Church and intercommunion with her.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I do wonder why the EO don't view the Assryians in the same way they view the Oriental Orthodox. This really baffles me, I hope some can help me out!
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #78 on: June 10, 2004, 09:54:16 PM »


Because the situation is the same.  Both use terminology not used by the Chalcedonians, both honor men anathematized by the Chlacedonians, yet for the Non-Chalcedonians some Eastern Orthodox are willing to say the substance of the faith is the same to the point of allowing intercommunion. Also their ignoring of the Polish National Catholic Church, which by EO's own standards meets all the requirements they claim to require of Rome for Reunion namely rejection of Councils past the 7th, the Filioque, and obviously Papal Infallibilty and Supremacy.  The only common denominator between the Assyrian Church and the PNCC is both have close relations with Catholic Church and intercommunion with her.

The key word (I bolded above) is SOME, Deacon Lance. I take it to mean more than 'none' and an undefined amount less than 'all'. I rather imagine that in both communions a greater "some" disagree with intercommunion.

As to the PNCC, you paint with a too broad brush or do not understand Orthodox standards as you call them.
It would seem by your definition above that the PNCC fails Orthodoxy in the main point of Eucharistic unity- despite all the other 'requirements' you state (I must take your word on them). You well know that intercommunion to us is tantamount to acceptance of all the other church holds - which is why I will never commune in the RCC and the PNCC, despite all the rest, is not Orthodox by virtue of that very intercommunion.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #79 on: June 10, 2004, 10:51:58 PM »

Demetri,

Some includes at least the Patirchate of Antioch which is a significant some.

As to the PNCC that is the point of my question.  EO's always say they are waiting with open arms for Rome to renounce her errors.  Here is one of her daughters who has and she is left out in the cold.  Why have the Orthodox not extended Eucharistic Communion to the PNCC when they have done so with the Oriental Orthodox ? Because the OO's are Eastern and the EOs have a subtle aversion to anything Latin?  

Fr. Deacon Lance

« Last Edit: June 10, 2004, 10:55:36 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #80 on: June 10, 2004, 11:20:18 PM »

Quote
As to the PNCC that is the point of my question.  EO's always say they are waiting with open arms for Rome to renounce her errors.  Here is one of her daughters who has and she is left out in the cold.  Why have the Orthodox not extended Eucharistic Communion to the PNCC when they have done so with the Oriental Orthodox ? Because the OO's are Eastern and the EOs have a subtle aversion to anything Latin?

Hmmm... I'd never even thought of that before - good observation Deacon Lance.

Maybe this would be a good topic for a seperate thread?

I know I would be eager to learn more about this.

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #81 on: June 10, 2004, 11:24:36 PM »

Quote
Deacon Lance: Why are the Orthodox willing to make concessions for the Orientals but not the Assyrians?

I don't think we are willing to make any concessions to either group, not if we are to be true to the Councils and Fathers.

One sometimes gets the wrong impression from comments made on this forum, but I don't see any concessions coming from the Orthodox Church.

Quote
Ben: I do wonder why the EO don't view the Assryians in the same way they view the Oriental Orthodox. This really baffles me, I hope some can help me out!

I think you mean to imply that we "accept" the Non-Chalcedonians as Orthodox and do not accept the Assyrians as Orthodox.

That is not the case.

We accept neither group as Orthodox.

Perhaps one could say in the NCs favor that they are one council closer to Orthodoxy than the Assyrians, but that's about it.




« Last Edit: June 10, 2004, 11:25:21 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #82 on: June 10, 2004, 11:26:05 PM »

Demetri,

Some includes at least the Patirchate of Antioch which is a significant some.
Significant perhaps to you and your argument, but certainly not to me. Part of the protections from error in the Orthodox communion is our autocephalous structure- something you monocephalists still don't understand apparently.

Quote
As to the PNCC that is the point of my question.  EO's always say they are waiting with open arms for Rome to renounce her errors.  Here is one of her daughters who has and she is left out in the cold.  Why have the Orthodox not extended Eucharistic Communion to the PNCC when they have done so with the Oriental Orthodox ? Because the OO's are Eastern and the EOs have a subtle aversion to anything Latin?  
BY our definitions, not yours, the PNCC is still in error.
But I'll play your Polish game---when the Church of Rome becomes Orthodox I am sure all of the Vatican communion will be welcomed, including the PNCC.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #83 on: June 10, 2004, 11:33:00 PM »

Quote
BY our definitions, not yours, the PNCC is still in error.

Why is the PNCC considered to be in error?

Because it has not approached the Orthodox Church to be received?

What would it take from the PNCC not to be in error?

Sorry for all the questions, but like I told Deacon Lance, I'd never even thought about this situation before and I amvery intrigued.

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #84 on: June 10, 2004, 11:48:51 PM »

Why is the PNCC considered to be in error?


Eucharistic Unity, Aaron.
If I commune at a non-Orthodox chalice I excommunicate myself by my virtual (actual) acceptance of all that that non-Orthodox church holds. No matter how many "requirements" Deacon Lance says the PNCC fulfills to be Orthodox, they nullify all of it via their intercommunion with a non-Orthodox church.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #85 on: June 10, 2004, 11:51:36 PM »

Why isn't the PNCC in union with the Orthodox Church? Has the PNCC approached the Orthodox Church to recieved? Is there any current dialouge between the PNCC and the Orthodox Church about the possibility of union?
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #86 on: June 11, 2004, 12:00:11 AM »

Quote
Eucharistic Unity, Aaron.
If I commune at a non-Orthodox chalice I excommunicate myself by my virtual (actual) acceptance of all that that non-Orthodox church holds. No matter how many "requirements" Deacon Lance says the PNCC fulfills to be Orthodox, they nullify all of it via their intercommunion with a non-Orthodox church.

So Eucharistic unity is the only reason the PNCC is considered to be in error? Sorry if that question sounds simplistic, I am merely trying to get to the core of this.

I completely understand what you are saying by communing outside of the Orthodox Church, if I was Orthodox I would only commune at Orthodox Churches too - same goes for if I became a Catholic, etc.

Insofar as the inter-communion between the PNCC and the RC, I was under the impression that this was only to ccur under spcific circumstances - not an "all the time" thing. Perhaps I am mistaken?

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #87 on: June 11, 2004, 12:03:13 AM »

Anybody else think this topic would be better suited to a seperate thread?

We've gone completely off topic and these recent posts have absolutely nothing to do with the Assryian Church and H.H. JPII.

If one of the mods happens to read this, would you be able to split this into a seperate topic?

Thank you.  Cheesy

In Christ,
Aaron
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 12:03:52 AM by Arystarcus » Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #88 on: June 11, 2004, 12:06:10 AM »

for more info on the PNCC - http://www.pgf.cc/religion/faith_PNCC.asp
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #89 on: June 11, 2004, 12:10:56 AM »

I think a new thread should be started...hmm...but in which forum?
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #90 on: June 11, 2004, 12:17:21 AM »

So Eucharistic unity is the only reason the PNCC is considered to be in error? Sorry if that question sounds simplistic, I am merely trying to get to the core of this.

You got me there, Aaron  Smiley. It's not a simplistic question.
I've not made a study of them - only going on what Deacon Lance posted myself. Hence, I can't say if that's the ONLY reason - but it's a biggie. And if it is indeed the old "emergency communion"-thing, well, perhaps it's as simple as they don't want commmunion with us? Shocked

Demetri
 
Yep, new thread is fine...
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #91 on: June 11, 2004, 12:18:38 AM »

Quote
I think a new thread should be started...hmm...but in which forum?

First I was going to say the Orthodox/Catholic* Discussion forum, but then I noticed the "*in communion with Rome", so that's out.

I'd guess "The 'Other' Board"?

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #92 on: June 11, 2004, 12:21:46 AM »

the Other board sounds good aaron
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #93 on: June 11, 2004, 12:23:15 AM »

Quote
Yep, new thread is fine...

Demetri,

If I start a new thread, will one of the mods be able to transfer all the posts about the PNCC in this thread and paste them into the new one about the PNCC?

I don't wanna mess anything up!  Shocked

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #94 on: June 11, 2004, 11:07:16 AM »

Linus,

"I don't think we are willing to make any concessions to either group, not if we are to be true to the Councils and Fathers.

One sometimes gets the wrong impression from comments made on this forum, but I don't see any concessions coming from the Orthodox Church."

It would seem that concessions have already been made.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/statements.html

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 11, 2004, 11:09:30 AM »

Oh good Lord, not this again...
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #96 on: June 11, 2004, 11:12:42 AM »

Demetri,

"As to the PNCC, you paint with a too broad brush or do not understand Orthodox standards as you call them.
It would seem by your definition above that the PNCC fails Orthodoxy in the main point of Eucharistic unity- despite all the other 'requirements' you state (I must take your word on them). You well know that intercommunion to us is tantamount to acceptance of all the other church holds - which is why I will never commune in the RCC and the PNCC, despite all the rest, is not Orthodox by virtue of that very intercommunion."

Then according to your reasoning you should  not be willing to commune with the Patriachate of Antioch as they practice  intercommunion with the Syrian Orthodox  (an intercommunion that far exceeds that between the Catholic Church and the PNCC) and even if you did you would still be in communion with a bishop who retains communion with them. Your position is not at all consistent.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #97 on: June 11, 2004, 11:42:28 AM »

It would seem that concessions have already been made.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/statements.html


Oh my, Peter Farrington's uber-ecumenist website. Wonderful perspective. Since when do 'agreements' constitute concessions in the Deposit of Orthodox faith?
My read of these things is pretty much like the signed and largely (or totally) ignored Balamund Agreement - Meaningless in this case unless and until full communion and con-celebration is established with all Orthodox churches.

Demetri, the bored
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 11, 2004, 11:51:44 AM »

Thanks for the snide comments Demetri.

Since when have I been an 'uber-ecumenist'. Is this all the EO is good for? Abuse and arrogance. Pride and prelest.

I thank God I'm in an Orthodox Church that is willing to try and reach out to others. If you are a true representative of what Eastern Orthodoxy stands for then I don't want to be united with you. You don't have a very nice attitude at all.

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 11, 2004, 11:58:45 AM »

Eucharistic Unity, Aaron.
If I commune at a non-Orthodox chalice I excommunicate myself by my virtual (actual) acceptance of all that that non-Orthodox church holds. No matter how many "requirements" Deacon Lance says the PNCC fulfills to be Orthodox, they nullify all of it via their intercommunion with a non-Orthodox church.

Which just goes to show that when EO bishops consent to their faithful recieving from the chalice in an OO church it is exactly because they do not consider the OO to be non-Orthodox. And that is the same reason that OO are allowed to commune in most EO churches when there is need.

It happens all over the place. It shows what EO bishops really think, and what OO bishops really think.

MP's communing Copts, Copts communing MP's. Serbians and ROCOR communing Copts and Ethiopians. Antiocheans and Syrians communing each other. Alexandrians communing each other. It is happening all over the world. And is a sign that these bishops do not consider each other to be non-Orthodox.

Of course this means, by the EO logic being applied here that the EO is non-Orthodox, since apart from ROAC all EO are implicated in the network of inter-communion that is taking place. Why I even know of an EO bishop who offered communion to an entire OO congregation when they were in dire need one Pascha when their church was suddenly unavailable. That implicates any bishop who is in communion with him and makes them all non-Orthodox, apparently.

But then what do I know, apparently I'm an 'uber-ecumenist' whatever that means. if it means I put up with defects in EOxy that's true, if it means I put up with heresy then it's a damn lie.

I wonder how determined many of the posters are here and yet they haven't been elevated by their churches to the position of bishops. Yet they seem to consider they know better than all their bishops about everything. Yet another interesting difference between what I learn of the EO here and the OO where in fact bishops are universally respected, certainly in my own Church.

Peter
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 12:02:59 PM by peterfarrington » Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #100 on: June 11, 2004, 12:00:24 PM »

Oh my, Peter Farrington's uber-ecumenist website. Wonderful perspective. Since when do 'agreements' constitute concessions in the Deposit of Orthodox faith?
My read of these things is pretty much like the signed and largely (or totally) ignored Balamund Agreement - Meaningless in this case unless and until full communion and con-celebration is established with all Orthodox churches.

Demetri, the bored

Let's try to focus on the issues and not create descriptive appelations for our opponents.

Thanks

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #101 on: June 11, 2004, 12:06:09 PM »

Demetri,

"As to the PNCC, you paint with a too broad brush or do not understand Orthodox standards as you call them.
It would seem by your definition above that the PNCC fails Orthodoxy in the main point of Eucharistic unity- despite all the other 'requirements' you state (I must take your word on them). You well know that intercommunion to us is tantamount to acceptance of all the other church holds - which is why I will never commune in the RCC and the PNCC, despite all the rest, is not Orthodox by virtue of that very intercommunion."

Then according to your reasoning you should  not be willing to commune with the Patriachate of Antioch as they practice  intercommunion with the Syrian Orthodox  (an intercommunion that far exceeds that between the Catholic Church and the PNCC) and even if you did you would still be in communion with a bishop who retains communion with them. Your position is not at all consistent.

Fr. Deacon Lance


Whoa, Big Guy.
YOU are the one who constructed this house-'o-cards last night by maligning the Orthodox Church for not 'making concessions' to the Assyrians and PNCC as you allege we have done with the Orientals - not ME. Your argument stated that the only thing the PNCC had against it was 'good relations' with Rome and Rome's 'intercommunion' with BOTH (Assyrians and PNCC). These are as yet unsupported assumptions as to being the 'only' diffferences between the PNCC and the Orthodox, BTW.
Then this morning you post elsewhere here a document that belies intercommunion between the PNCC and Rome. Give me a break; I may be a puppet, but not your puppet or straight-man in this board. It's your argument you've shot down on your own.
As to the Antiochians and my opinion, rest assured both Metropolitans Nicholas and Maximos know my personal opinion - I'll let them do their job with Antioch.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #102 on: June 11, 2004, 12:09:57 PM »

Sorry you are offended PT. This is not directed at you or your church.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #103 on: June 11, 2004, 12:51:14 PM »

Demetri,

I fail to understand your arguement.  First of all I don't think pointing out a difference in treatment is maligning the Orthodox Church.  Intercommunion between the Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox is a concession and I don't see what else it could be called.

As to the PNCC there are a few differences: They allow priests and bishops to be married and I think they allow this even after ordination, I am unsure on this point.  Also there website states they hold the first 4 Ecumencial Councils as authoratative. I don't know how they feel about 5-7, but they certainly use icons and statues. And to be fair I don't know how actively the PNCC has sought intercommunion with the Orthodox.  But I think it is valid to question why the Orthodox have not actively sought it with the PNCC.

As to the document I posted, how does that belie the intercommunion between the Catholic Church and the PNCC, when it in fact outlines it.  There is limited pastoral intercommunion but concelebration is not allowed.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #104 on: June 11, 2004, 01:21:36 PM »

Demetri,

I fail to understand your arguement.  First of all I don't think pointing out a difference in treatment is maligning the Orthodox Church.  Intercommunion between the Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox is a concession and I don't see what else it could be called.

But a far cry from all of Orthodoxy, deacon. For all I know at this point we are either seeing a de-facto reunion or the final sundering of the See of Antioch - the most schismed see, I think. Perhaps they are departing Eastern Orthodoxy and becoming Oriental - don't know yet.
Quote
As to the PNCC there are a few differences: They allow priests and bishops to be married and I think they allow this even after ordination, I am unsure on this point.  Also there website states they hold the first 4 Ecumencial Councils as authoratative. I don't know how they feel about 5-7, but they certainly use icons and statues. And to be fair I don't know how actively the PNCC has sought intercommunion with the Orthodox.  But I think it is valid to question why the Orthodox have not actively sought it with the PNCC.

Thanks for a fuller account and enumeration of some apparently very real differences. I don't see the Orthodox as concerned with seeking out communion as some other churches do. The dismal experiment with the Anglicans early last century and its fallout even into today have, in my opinion, made 'active' pursuit of communion a less tempting goal.
Quote
As to the document I posted, how does that belie the intercommunion between the Catholic Church and the PNCC, when it in fact outlines it.  There is limited pastoral intercommunion but concelebration is not allowed.

You continue to confuse me here. You did state 'intercommunion' earlier; now it's 'limited pastoral intercommunion' - there is a difference in how that is germaine to your premise.

Demetri
 
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #105 on: June 11, 2004, 01:57:23 PM »

Demetri,

I should be clearer perhaps.  From the Catholic point of view, intercommunion is always limited pastoral intercommunion, concelebration technically not being allowed until full reunion is achieved, although the Chaldeans and Assyrians do concelebrate I am told. On the other hand the Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox do allow concelebration, although full union has not been achieved.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #106 on: June 11, 2004, 05:19:15 PM »

OK, Deacon Lance. Thanks for the clarification.
On another note dealing with the PNCC (I am aware of the other thread on the other board but don't want to deflect that ongoing conversation there), it would seem from your description that the PNCC should be talking communion more with the Oriental rather than the Eastern Orthodox.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #107 on: June 11, 2004, 05:41:53 PM »

If the PNCC are in communion with the RCC then that would preclude communion with the OO. If the PNCC wanted to talk with the OO and were willing to decide whether they wanted to be Orthodox Catholic in faith and enter communion with the OO as a national Church then I am sure that would proceed positively as far as was possible. A Latin rite (are the PNCC Latin rite or Eastern) is not problematic in OOxy AFAIK. There is already work being done among Spanish speaking converts to OOxy.

But they would have to make a choice at present about being in communion with the RCC.

Have they made any contact with the OO I wonder?

Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #108 on: June 11, 2004, 05:47:55 PM »


But they would have to make a choice at present about being in communion with the RCC.

Have they made any contact with the OO I wonder?


From Deacon Lance's clarification, it would seem that they only have a "limited pastoral intercommunion" with the RCC - similar to the de-facto intercommunion you point out between the EO and OO. Still seems as if they'd be a better match with with your church, PT, than the EO. But then I'm not PNCC, OO, or RCC; so what do I know?

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 11, 2004, 05:49:22 PM »

Why do you think they would be better suited to union with the OO.

If they are not Orthodox then union is precluded, if they are Orthodox then why would the EO be so unwilling to work for reconciliation?
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #110 on: June 11, 2004, 08:12:46 PM »

Why do you think they would be better suited to union with the OO.

Fewer councils to argue about ...

Quote
If they are not Orthodox then union is precluded, if they are Orthodox then why would the EO be so unwilling to work for reconciliation?

Can't answer for the EOs or know that they are not unwilling.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
PieX
Banned
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 11, 2004, 08:14:58 PM »

The PolNats agree with all the councils until Vatican I
Logged

"Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)Â
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #112 on: June 11, 2004, 08:34:51 PM »

I think you are wrong Pie, their website says they only believe in 7 Councils- The first 7.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,276


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 11, 2004, 11:44:17 PM »

My read of these things is pretty much like the signed and largely (or totally) ignored Balamund Agreement - Meaningless in this case unless and until full communion and con-celebration is established with all Orthodox churches.

Is there any basis in church history for this attitude?  That it doesn't matter what one local Church is doing, as long as the other local Churches, while remaining in communion with it, are not following suit?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #114 on: June 12, 2004, 12:02:17 AM »

Is there any basis in church history for this attitude?  That it doesn't matter what one local Church is doing, as long as the other local Churches, while remaining in communion with it, are not following suit?  
From an extreme interpretation---
Not if one takes the situation as permanent and perpetually ignored, Mor Phil. The Antiocjhans may end up condemned if re-union fails or applauded for helping bring it about. Too soon to tell. All does not happen instantaneously except when we read things in retrospect (history).
Anyway, your excerpt of my post is out of context when read outside the full post and prior thread.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,276


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #115 on: June 12, 2004, 12:13:32 AM »

From an extreme interpretation---
Not if one takes the situation as permanent and perpetually ignored, Mor Phil. The Antiocjhans may end up condemned if re-union fails or applauded for helping bring it about. Too soon to tell. All does not happen instantaneously except when we read things in retrospect (history).
Anyway, your excerpt of my post is out of context when read outside the full post and prior thread.

Demetri

Perhaps it is out of context, I don't know, but I can't keep up with these discussions as I would like, nor do I have the time and patience to re-read them.  

Anyway, I would think that the matter is really simple.  Is a heresy a heresy because it always was and is contrary to the Christian faith, or is it heresy because at a certain time and place, the Church decides to reject it?  If the latter, then it is altogether appropriate to wait and see what happens with the Greek Patriarchate in Antioch with regard to the rest of EOxy.  If the former, then why the silence in EOxy about the Antiochians and their flirtation with the "heretical" Non-Chalcedonians, a schism over a thousand years old?  The only people who make any noise about this are those who have rejected the greater communion, and elements within it who are looking to "restore" it.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #116 on: June 12, 2004, 12:54:16 AM »

Perhaps it is out of context, I don't know, but I can't keep up with these discussions as I would like, nor do I have the time and patience to re-read them.  

Anyway, I would think that the matter is really simple.  Is a heresy a heresy because it always was and is contrary to the Christian faith, or is it heresy because at a certain time and place, the Church decides to reject it?  If the latter, then it is altogether appropriate to wait and see what happens with the Greek Patriarchate in Antioch with regard to the rest of EOxy.  If the former, then why the silence in EOxy about the Antiochians and their flirtation with the "heretical" Non-Chalcedonians, a schism over a thousand years old?  The only people who make any noise about this are those who have rejected the greater communion, and elements within it who are looking to "restore" it.  

OK, now I see 'where you're coming from'.
My comment was addressing working agreements in general and not in Antiochian/Syriac intercommunion per se. Statements and working agreements are not usually at a state of finalization formally. Call them provisional agreements; and here covering something less than full communion I believe.
As to the Antiochian and "silence"- where does one get the impression that they are NOT being criticized in EO circles? Of the six "Greek" churches the Antiochians are the only ones under Arab control (as it should be) and sometimes I think they like to stick a finger in the Greeks' eye  Wink

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Tags: Church of the East Assyrian 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.293 seconds with 143 queries.