OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 11:57:06 PM *
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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Assyrian Church of the East  (Read 69171 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #540 on: January 05, 2010, 04:40:38 PM »

witega,

If you're willing accept blanket statements as fact and ignore claims which utilize authoritive references to support the claims then I can't help you.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #541 on: January 05, 2010, 05:08:47 PM »

witega,

If you're willing accept blanket statements as fact and ignore claims which utilize authoritive references to support the claims then I can't help you.
I don't think witega is accepting blanket statements as fact, if by this you mean Rafa999's statements regarding his own church.  I think he's arguing, as well as I, that whether or not Rafa is representing his faith accurately, he is at least here to represent a faith that is his own, a faith that he and maybe the rest of the COE believe and teach NOW.  You, OTOH, are defending a faith you admit is not your own, and you do so by citing works that detail what the COE may have believed several centuries ago, NOT what they believe NOW.

The way I see it, I don't grant Rafa999 much credibility, for I can see that he's very likely misrepresenting his faith, but I don't think you any more credible an authority than he, since you're defending a faith you haven't lived and experienced first hand.  Christian faith isn't merely what one can read in a collection of historical documents.  For one to be able to represent it truly, one needs to live it and breathe it and experience it as the very prism through which he sees all of life in Christ.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 05:10:31 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #542 on: January 05, 2010, 06:01:27 PM »


The Church ogf the East stopped using icons under pressure of conforming to surrounding Islamic society.  I have forgotten what centuries this was taking place.... anybody have a reference about this?    All that remained in the churches were quite simple crosses.

These days Assyrian faithful have icons in their home, the local Assyrian priest has an entire wall of them, but in the church itself he has only some quite plain wooden crosses.

Again, I ask, where do you get the idea that the ACE actually did use icons at some point?

A very small amount of information here, from Irish Melkite...

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?s=4005385ac1dcc5e3af2381dd88ef69ab&p=3145428&postcount=64

I'm definitely skeptical.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #543 on: January 05, 2010, 06:02:59 PM »


Uh, no.  The Arab and Middle Eastern resident Greeks are Rum orthodox. The Syriac are "suryaan."

That's what I thought...


And they weren't "part" of the Assyrian church to break off from it.

Unless, perhaps, he has a similar ecclesiastically supremacist view as the EO and OO whereby the ACE is the last remaining representation of the original Apostolic faith.
....and can prove it.

Why should he be required to prove his version of ecclesiastical supremacy when the EO and OO don't do it?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #544 on: January 05, 2010, 06:07:28 PM »

I never thought using the native language to translate the gospels and other writings for people was a heresy to the Assyrian Church.

That, alongside Rafa's insistence that God could not become man, makes the COE seem very similar to Islamic beliefs.

It emphasizes God's transcendence over and above his condescension to humanity. EO'y allows both aspects to sit side-by-side in harmony. The Akathist of the Annunciation says: "for thus did God condescend, and not merely descend".
In EO theology did God become incarnate through his Essence? Energies? Both?

The Logos in His Essence condescended; and He became human.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #545 on: January 05, 2010, 06:23:41 PM »

witega,

If you're willing accept blanket statements as fact and ignore claims which utilize authoritive references to support the claims then I can't help you.

Pretty much ditto what PtA said. I specifically included in my last post the possibility that Rafa999 is simply wrong. But an actual living, breath representative of the faith (which I have no reason to believe Rafa999 is not) bears more weight about what a faith community actually believes (as possibly opposed to what they *should* believe) than any 1200-year old document being interpreted by outsiders.

Again, consider that (Eastern) Orthodox and Roman Catholics both claim the same Fathers, the same Councils, the same writings from the first 8 centuries or so (after that, some figures, like St. Photios get controversial). But we quite clearly don't share the exact same faith in the present, even though we both claim full fidelity to those first 8 centuries. To understand this, you have to understand how each of us, as a living community, interprets the authoritative statements from those centuries.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #546 on: January 05, 2010, 06:30:15 PM »


Uh, no.  The Arab and Middle Eastern resident Greeks are Rum orthodox. The Syriac are "suryaan."

That's what I thought...


And they weren't "part" of the Assyrian church to break off from it.

Unless, perhaps, he has a similar ecclesiastically supremacist view as the EO and OO whereby the ACE is the last remaining representation of the original Apostolic faith.
....and can prove it.

Why should he be required to prove his version of ecclesiastical supremacy when the EO and OO don't do it?

One, its an Orthodox board.

But besides, I'm quite fine with demonstrating that the EO and OO (in particular with this case in point, the Syriac OO) have proof.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #547 on: January 05, 2010, 06:52:16 PM »


Uh, no.  The Arab and Middle Eastern resident Greeks are Rum orthodox. The Syriac are "suryaan."

That's what I thought...


And they weren't "part" of the Assyrian church to break off from it.

Unless, perhaps, he has a similar ecclesiastically supremacist view as the EO and OO whereby the ACE is the last remaining representation of the original Apostolic faith.
....and can prove it.

Why should he be required to prove his version of ecclesiastical supremacy when the EO and OO don't do it?

One, its an Orthodox board.

But besides, I'm quite fine with demonstrating that the EO and OO (in particular with this case in point, the Syriac OO) have proof.

Perhaps you're not getting the point I'm trying to make. If what I am saying is true about his beliefs, then not only was the Syriac Orthodox Church once part of the ACE, but also the Coptic, Armenian, Greek, Russian, etc.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #548 on: January 05, 2010, 07:13:50 PM »

witega,

If you're willing accept blanket statements as fact and ignore claims which utilize authoritive references to support the claims then I can't help you.

Pretty much ditto what PtA said. I specifically included in my last post the possibility that Rafa999 is simply wrong. But an actual living, breath representative of the faith (which I have no reason to believe Rafa999 is not) bears more weight about what a faith community actually believes (as possibly opposed to what they *should* believe) than any 1200-year old document being interpreted by outsiders.

I should add here, that I mean in the absence of other witnesses. If you have something written by Patriarch Dinkha or one of his bishops or one of his priests or one of his theologians, then I'll certainly put more weight on that than on Rafa999's words. But right now, he's what we've got to work with.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #549 on: January 05, 2010, 11:57:38 PM »

With Certain Knowledge and responsibility comes certain sacrifice. One of the sacrifices I have had to make to prove my allegiance to the Church of the East is to occasionally set my face against other Christians (of diverse backgrounds). It is very sad but it must be done for the good of Christendom. No iconography in the COE. Now for the replies:

Quote
"Qnome" was very similar in meaning to Hypostasis.

Could you explain in other words what qnome and hypostasis mean in your tradition? If you can distinguish at all between the two in meaning, that would be helpful, but otherwise just one meaning will be good as well.

OK I will give this a shot. A Kyana is a Nature. The Ant nature for instance. A Qnome is a member of a taxonomic class, an individuated instance of a Kyana which does not contain its totality. Thus we have ant number one, number two, or human number one, human number two,etc. We as human beings have one Qnome for each person. God however is Special: he has THREE Qnome, three individuated instances of his Kyana, but they don't express the Totality of his Divinity by themselves. Thus we have the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. The Son, the second Qnome dwelt with the Human nature of the Messiah side by side during the ministry of Jesus, and was bound in one Parsopa. Mar Odisho used the Light, the Warmth and the Yellow color of the sun ray to illustrate how Qnome is not some sort of modalism, rather they are intrinsic properties of the being or object in question, not extrinsic. I recommend you reading his catechism. For those who think this great Patriarch does not represent the mainstream of COE thought think again, his works are read every Qurbana:

http://www.assyrianchurch.org.au/media-e-p.htm

go to the English Sermons.


Quote
Were there a lot of Jewish Christians in the early COE? (I'm wondering why you were called Nazarenes)

Several of the COE's patriarchs were Jews. Two were relatives of Jesus (Mar Abris (c. 121-c. 137) was related to the Virgin, and Mar Abraham I (c. 159-c. 171) was a relative of Yosip the Carpenter). The Assyrian Queen Helena of Adiabene (who built one of Jerusalem's Seven gates) was Jewish and made her subjects convert to this faith before Jesus (many of her subjects were in fact Hebrews who had reverted to paganism because of the diaspora induced by the original Assyrian empire). The exiles of the See of St.James were headed by the COE when that Ancient see met its end during the Bar Kochba revolt. The Assyrians were called Nazarenes in the old days, but the "name" thing is a problem for Assyrians and the last thing I want to introduce is that Assyrians are Jews since that will cause more chaos considering the current schisms with the Chaldean Church and the Ancient Church of the East, plus the "Assyrian vs Aramean" debate . Many people I know who are Jewish chose the COE over other forms of Christianity because it has a common history with Judaism and understands certain things others are not quite aware of. Many ancient laws observed in Judaism are in fact obeyed by older Assyrians- Niddah, prohibition of flesh meat (especially crayfish and o) for Bishops, the custom of sacrificing paschal lambs, etc. The COE is a Catholic Church it has had Patriarchs from China, Persia, Mongolia, and many other places, a very diverse Church.

Quote
Are you aware of the so-called "Orthodox Church of the East"?

Maybe the Ancient Church of the East ? They broke up due to issues with the Calendar and the Patriarch a few decades ago. There are many fragmented schismatic groups claiming jurisdiction authority from the COE as well.

Quote
It's why the SOC is "rum orthodox" (ie: follow the rum, the Romans).

Are you sure about that? I've only ever heard the Chalcedonians referred to as "rum orthodox".

Actually I meant the Oriental Orthodox Antiochan Patriarchate:

http://www.rum-orthodox.de/

Which substantiates my point that they broke out ahem.

Minas said:
Quote
I never thought using the native language to translate the gospels and other writings for people was a heresy to the Assyrian Church.

Hmmm...I don't know if its heresy but the COE does not give its seal of approval to any translation whatsoever. You can translate all you want you just cant say its the original. Failure to obey this means scripture turning into the works of men. It has happened hundreds (thousands ) of times before, why wont it happen again? Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees...

Quote
King Abgar spoke Aramaic. The Didache was in Aramaic (our Syriac version=correct). I have proof, Eusebius in his history says he translated the letters and other documents from the Edessene Archive.
Well, if Eusebius said this and you have proof that he did, I'm sure you can post this proof here so we can read it ourselves.  Otherwise, you speak as a person with no credibility.

D'oh!  I forgot.  You guys burn evidence.

here:
Quote
The 4th century church historian Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, records a tradition[5] concerning a correspondence on this occasion, exchanged between Abgar of Edessa and Jesus. Eusebius was convinced that the original letters, written in Syriac, were kept in the archives of Edessa. Eusebius also states that in due course, after Christ's ascension, Thaddeus, namely Addai (called Addaï), or one of the seventy-two Disciples, called Thaddeus of Edessa, was sent by Thomas the Apostle in AD 29. Eusebius copies the two letters into the text of his history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgar_V_of_Edessa#Liturgical_use_of_the_letter_of_Abgar

the passage is in Historia Ecclesiastica, I, xiii

The "Chaldeans" are Assyrians who transferred their allegiance to the Patriarch of Rome instead of the Patriarch of Babylon and also have a few things not allowed in the ACOE like Icons, and a slightly different canon from the ACOE (the last 5 NT books are not in the COE reading cycle but are pious books reccomended for reading and often cited to respect sister churches).





When did your church stop using icons?

The Church ogf the East stopped using icons under pressure of conforming to surrounding Islamic society.  I have forgotten what centuries this was taking place.... anybody have a reference about this?    All that remained in the churches were quite simple crosses.

These days Assyrian faithful have icons in their home, the local Assyrian priest has an entire wall of them, but in the church itself he has only some quite plain wooden crosses.

Well, I hate to be mean but whenever a COE priest starts with this "the muslims made us do it" stuff they are simply kicking around the bush to be diplomatic and polite. I need to say it though: the COE considers Iconography a violation of the second command. Here are the words of the beloved Mar Shimun, the Patriarch before the current holy Mar Dinkha on this matter (will provide link to my text):

From the  Yulapana M'sheekhaya (Messianic Teaching) :

Quote
Question 377: "What is an Idol" ?

Answer: Anything which is made of wood, stone, silver, gold or any other thing by Christians or by gentiles or anybody else in the likeness of corruptible man, of bird, of four footed beasts and of creeping things and the like "that they may change the glory of the incorruptible God" is called an 'idol' or 'image' (Rom. 1:23-25).

Question 378: "Can we worship God without idols?"

Answer: The Question whether we could worship God without idols is really deplorable. If we believe that "God is Spirit", it is written that "...God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth" John 4:24

http://marshimun.com/pdfs/Yulpana%20part%20V.pdf

Now Mar Shimun, the previous deceased Patriarch is a Hero of the Assyrian people and a holy martyr to the muslims who murdered him. No self respecting Assyrian will budge on something he considered core. The new Catechism is here, but no change has been made concerning this policy:

http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html

Mar Shimun's catechism was written when most Assyrians were still secluded in the Hakkari mountains, BUT that is a core COE issue which will never change, the Ten Commandments are.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 12:04:17 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,990


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #550 on: January 06, 2010, 12:04:58 AM »

Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East

    His Holiness John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, give thanks to God who has prompted them to this new brotherly meeting.
 
    Both of them consider this meeting as a basic step on the way towards the full communion to be restored between their Churches. They can indeed, from now on, proclaim together before the world their common faith in the mystery of the Incarnation.
 
    As heirs and guardians of the faith received from the Apostles as formulated by our common Fathers in the Nicene Creed, we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity who, in the fullness of time, came down from heaven and became man for our salvation. The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.
 
    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.
 
    Christ therefore is not an "ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason 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.
 
    This is the unique faith that we profess in the mystery of Christ. The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.
 
    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.
 
    The mystery of the Incarnation which we profess in common is not an abstract and isolated truth. It refers to the Son of God sent to save us. The economy of salvation, which has its origin in the mystery of communion of the Holy Trinity � Father, Son and Holy Spirit �, is brought to its fulfilment through the sharing in this communion, by grace, within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which is the People of God, the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit.
 
    Believers become members of this Body through the sacrament of Baptism, through which, by water and the working of the Holy Spirit, they are born again as new creatures. They are confirmed by the seal of the Holy Spirit who bestows the sacrament of Anointing. Their communion with God and among themselves is brought to full realization by the celebration of the unique offering of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. This communion is restored for the sinful members of the Church when they are reconciled with God and with one another through the sacrament of Forgiveness. The sacrament of Ordination to the ministerial priesthood in the apostolic succession assures the authenticity of the faith, the sacraments and the communion in each local Church.
 
    Living by this faith and these sacraments, it follows as a consequence that the particular Catholic churches and the particular Assyrian churches can recognize each other as sister Churches. To be full and entire, communion presupposes the unanimity concerning the content of the faith, the sacraments and the constitution of the Church. Since this unanimity for which we aim has not yet been attained, we cannot unfortunately celebrate together the Eucharist which is the sign of the ecclesial communion already fully restored.
 
    Nevertheless, the deep spiritual communion in the faith and the mutual trust already existing between our Churches entitle us from now on to consider witnessing together to the Gospel message and co-operating in particular pastoral situations, including especially the areas of catechesis and the formation of future priests.
 
    In thanking God for having made us rediscover what already unites us in the faith and the sacraments, we pledge ourselves to do everything possible to dispel the obstacles of the past which still pre vent the attainment of full communion between our Churches, so that we can better respond to the Lord's call for the unity of his own, a unity which has of course to be expressed visibly. To overcome these obstacles, we now establish a Mixed Committee for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.
 
    Given at Saint Peter's, on 11 November 1994

K. MAR DINKHA
IOANNES PAULUS PP. II


[Acta Apostolicae Sedis 87, 8 (1995) 685-687 and Information Service 88 (1995/I) 2-3]
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #551 on: January 06, 2010, 12:12:01 AM »

The COE agrees with everything on that paper. These documents are only signed in centuries (COE has had only ten Synods). Thankyou for posting it  Deacon Lance.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 12:33:36 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #552 on: January 06, 2010, 12:33:53 AM »


Uh, no.  The Arab and Middle Eastern resident Greeks are Rum orthodox. The Syriac are "suryaan."

That's what I thought...


And they weren't "part" of the Assyrian church to break off from it.

Unless, perhaps, he has a similar ecclesiastically supremacist view as the EO and OO whereby the ACE is the last remaining representation of the original Apostolic faith.
....and can prove it.

Why should he be required to prove his version of ecclesiastical supremacy when the EO and OO don't do it?

One, its an Orthodox board.

But besides, I'm quite fine with demonstrating that the EO and OO (in particular with this case in point, the Syriac OO) have proof.

Perhaps you're not getting the point I'm trying to make. If what I am saying is true about his beliefs, then not only was the Syriac Orthodox Church once part of the ACE, but also the Coptic, Armenian, Greek, Russian, etc.
I get the point, I am just pointing out its error.  I single the Syriac OO out for the simple reason that that takes ACE's clams head on.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #553 on: January 06, 2010, 01:50:41 PM »

Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East

    His Holiness John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, give thanks to God who has prompted them to this new brotherly meeting.
 
    Both of them consider this meeting as a basic step on the way towards the full communion to be restored between their Churches. They can indeed, from now on, proclaim together before the world their common faith in the mystery of the Incarnation.
 
    As heirs and guardians of the faith received from the Apostles as formulated by our common Fathers in the Nicene Creed, we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity who, in the fullness of time, came down from heaven and became man for our salvation. The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.
 
    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.
 
    Christ therefore is not an "ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason 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.
 
    This is the unique faith that we profess in the mystery of Christ. The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.
 
    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.
 
    The mystery of the Incarnation which we profess in common is not an abstract and isolated truth. It refers to the Son of God sent to save us. The economy of salvation, which has its origin in the mystery of communion of the Holy Trinity � Father, Son and Holy Spirit �, is brought to its fulfilment through the sharing in this communion, by grace, within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which is the People of God, the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit.
 
    Believers become members of this Body through the sacrament of Baptism, through which, by water and the working of the Holy Spirit, they are born again as new creatures. They are confirmed by the seal of the Holy Spirit who bestows the sacrament of Anointing. Their communion with God and among themselves is brought to full realization by the celebration of the unique offering of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. This communion is restored for the sinful members of the Church when they are reconciled with God and with one another through the sacrament of Forgiveness. The sacrament of Ordination to the ministerial priesthood in the apostolic succession assures the authenticity of the faith, the sacraments and the communion in each local Church.
 
    Living by this faith and these sacraments, it follows as a consequence that the particular Catholic churches and the particular Assyrian churches can recognize each other as sister Churches. To be full and entire, communion presupposes the unanimity concerning the content of the faith, the sacraments and the constitution of the Church. Since this unanimity for which we aim has not yet been attained, we cannot unfortunately celebrate together the Eucharist which is the sign of the ecclesial communion already fully restored.
 
    Nevertheless, the deep spiritual communion in the faith and the mutual trust already existing between our Churches entitle us from now on to consider witnessing together to the Gospel message and co-operating in particular pastoral situations, including especially the areas of catechesis and the formation of future priests.
 
    In thanking God for having made us rediscover what already unites us in the faith and the sacraments, we pledge ourselves to do everything possible to dispel the obstacles of the past which still pre vent the attainment of full communion between our Churches, so that we can better respond to the Lord's call for the unity of his own, a unity which has of course to be expressed visibly. To overcome these obstacles, we now establish a Mixed Committee for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.
 
    Given at Saint Peter's, on 11 November 1994

K. MAR DINKHA
IOANNES PAULUS PP. II


[Acta Apostolicae Sedis 87, 8 (1995) 685-687 and Information Service 88 (1995/I) 2-3]

If this is the faith of the ACE, then I would say that they are orthodox in their Christology. However, was this always their faith?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 01:51:35 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #554 on: January 06, 2010, 02:09:18 PM »

The COE agrees with everything on that paper. These documents are only signed in centuries (COE has had only ten Synods). Thankyou for posting it  Deacon Lance.
So then you agree that God is personal and that Mary is "The Mother of Christ our God." So just accept the term Theotokos and we can put this controversy to rest.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 02:09:32 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #555 on: January 06, 2010, 02:42:37 PM »

God is personal but not a person. His personhood is not like yours or mine but beyond. The COE has no problems using "Mother of God" only Mother of Christ is more complete and proper. "Yaldath Alaha" is banned though because it implies an ACTUAL origin of the Divinity in Mary, unlike "Theotokos".
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #556 on: January 06, 2010, 03:49:37 PM »

God is personal but not a person. His personhood is not like yours or mine but beyond. The COE has no problems using "Mother of God" only Mother of Christ is more complete and proper. "Yaldath Alaha" is banned though because it implies an ACTUAL origin of the Divinity in Mary, unlike "Theotokos".
Ok so the personal thing is semantics then. As for Mother of God, I think the term is much more complete than Mother of Christ. The term emphasizes the fact that we know that Christ is God.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #557 on: January 06, 2010, 04:45:45 PM »

God is personal but not a person. His personhood is not like yours or mine but beyond. The COE has no problems using "Mother of God" only Mother of Christ is more complete and proper. "Yaldath Alaha" is banned though because it implies an ACTUAL origin of the Divinity in Mary, unlike "Theotokos".

I disagree that is the case.  It's precisely the word "Theotokos" that used to be anathema in your church.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #558 on: January 06, 2010, 10:45:17 PM »


OK I will give this a shot. A Kyana is a Nature. The Ant nature for instance.

So essentially it means the same things as ousia when it is used to refer to a class of beings?


A Qnome is a member of a taxonomic class, an individuated instance of a Kyana which does not contain its totality. Thus we have ant number one, number two, or human number one, human number two,etc.

That makes sense, and that is essentially my understanding of what hypostasis means.


We as human beings have one Qnome for each person. God however is Special: he has THREE Qnome, three individuated instances of his Kyana, but they don't express the Totality of his Divinity by themselves.

1. Are you saying that there is not one person for each of the qnome in Trinity?

2. What do you mean that they don't express the totality of the divinity by themselves? Do you mean that the Logos, for instance, is not the only qnome in the Godhead, but that there is also the other two? Or do you mean that the each qnome does not possess the fullness of the Godhead? Or do you mean that there is more to the Godhead than the three qnome?


The Son, the second Qnome dwelt with the Human nature of the Messiah side by side during the ministry of Jesus, and was bound in one Parsopa.

What do you mean by Parsopa?

Quote
Are you aware of the so-called "Orthodox Church of the East"?

Maybe the Ancient Church of the East ? They broke up due to issues with the Calendar and the Patriarch a few decades ago. There are many fragmented schismatic groups claiming jurisdiction authority from the COE as well.

No, that's not the group I'm talking about. From what I can tell, somewhat after the schism between the Ephesine church in the Roman Empire and the non-Ephesine church in the Sassanid Empire, the Syriac Orthodox Church developed a rival COE based in Tikrit which it invested with Catholicos status and called the "Orthodox Church of the East". There's a (not very well cited) Wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_of_the_East

Are you familiar with this? Supposedly in modern times its presence in the Iraq/Iran area faded and its only presence left is in the Indian Orthodox churches, which the SOC transferred the Catholicate to.



Actually I meant the Oriental Orthodox Antiochan Patriarchate:

http://www.rum-orthodox.de/

That website is Eastern Orthodox, not Oriental Orthodox.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #559 on: January 06, 2010, 11:16:31 PM »

Hi. Well Desuveritas, each Qnome shares of the divine essence of the divine Kyana, three in one, one in three. It's worth noting that some ancient texts split the Godhead into even more Qnome and that these are the three main ones only. Isaiah 11 for example supports this views, but that is a very complicated view of Godhead I'm not dwellling on. Lets stick to three qnome. They are individuated instances, you for example are not less human in your human qnome than Minas or Papist or myself. Only God has three and we have only one. So that's it. Hypostasis was a LONG time ago used interchangeably with Qnome during debates held by the COE, but it became outdated  as the meaning changed slightly and started being identified with "person".

As for the Orthodox Church of the East stuff...hmmm...maybe its just Marco Polo confusing things or just another schismatic group? The COE Canons are stuffed with directives for rebellious clergy which suggests (also based on its history) a long tradition of schismatics. Just recently a Bishop was defrocked for trying to have the COE become Roman Catholic (Ashur Soros). So I wouldn't be surprised.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #560 on: January 07, 2010, 12:12:23 PM »

Hi. Well Desuveritas, each Qnome shares of the divine essence of the divine Kyana, three in one, one in three. It's worth noting that some ancient texts split the Godhead into even more Qnome and that these are the three main ones only. Isaiah 11 for example supports this views, but that is a very complicated view of Godhead I'm not dwellling on. Lets stick to three qnome. They are individuated instances, you for example are not less human in your human qnome than Minas or Papist or myself. Only God has three and we have only one. So that's it. Hypostasis was a LONG time ago used interchangeably with Qnome during debates held by the COE, but it became outdated  as the meaning changed slightly and started being identified with "person".

As for the Orthodox Church of the East stuff...hmmm...maybe its just Marco Polo confusing things or just another schismatic group? The COE Canons are stuffed with directives for rebellious clergy which suggests (also based on its history) a long tradition of schismatics. Just recently a Bishop was defrocked for trying to have the COE become Roman Catholic (Ashur Soros). So I wouldn't be surprised.
^ Was he the bishop who recently came into communion with the Catholic Church and brought over some ex COE members?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #561 on: January 07, 2010, 01:04:58 PM »

It's worth noting that some ancient texts split the Godhead into even more Qnome and that these are the three main ones only. Isaiah 11 for example supports this views, but that is a very complicated view of Godhead I'm not dwellling on.
Shocked That is worth noting.  Where can I read more about that?  Are you sure you're not confusing Gnostic texts with Christian ones?


Quote
Just recently a Bishop was defrocked for trying to have the COE become Roman Catholic (Ashur Soros). So I wouldn't be surprised.

Mar Bawai Soro?
http://www.christiansofiraq.com/marbawaijan298.html

This is the same guy who our Coptic Metropolitan H.E. Met. Bishoy clashed with when Mar Bawai compared "two persons in one person" to our "two natures in one nature."

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 01:11:01 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #562 on: January 07, 2010, 04:42:52 PM »

The Assyrian Church of the East and Icons

I first found out about this in this thread (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20534.0.html) thanks to Isa.

There is a an article entitled "The Veneration of Images in the East Syriac Tradition" by Dr. Herman Teule in the book Die Welt der Götterbilder.  Dr. Teule is a research professor at the faculty of theology at the Dutch university Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and his profile can be seen here...http://theo.kuleuven.be/page/researchers/224/

Every other page or so of the afformentioned book is previewable for free on google books here...

http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7tsYRdvaV1wC&dq=Die+Welt+der+G%C3%B6tterbilder&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=HjUEjt7h2P&sig=PI1ni2nliQLDiydRSHfljvIxKb8&hl=ja&ei=qENGS-CzM4Ho7AOUy6ls&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

a summation of the article is availabe here...

http://www.thevoiceoforthodoxy.com/book_reviews.html

The article details positive mentions of iconography in the Assyrian Church of the East by patriarchs of the Assyrian Church up until about the 14th century, after which almost all mentions of iconography are negative. 

Hopefully this is enough to prove that, or at least move the discussion forward as pertains, the Assyrian Church of the East at one point used icons/images. 

It is interesting, but rather inconsequential to quote a modern day catechism by the Assyrian Church to the effect that iconography is not allowed, because we're talking about a practice that seems to have died out in the 14th century. 

Lastly, here is an article about a mural of the Theotokos and Christ in China made by monks of the Assyrian Church of the East during the 7th century...
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fv20010724a1.html


Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,990


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #563 on: January 07, 2010, 06:43:18 PM »

Just recently a Bishop was defrocked for trying to have the COE become Roman Catholic (Ashur Soros).

Mar Bawai was always pro-union, which is why I assume he was involved at the top levels of the Assyrian/Catholic dialogue, which I noticed has resumed.  Having read the court proceedings it certainly seems to me that Mar Bawai was dismissed more for pointing out the sexual misconduct of clergy and misuse of funds and requesting reform which fell on deaf ears at the Synod then his ideas about reunion.  In turn, he was himself accused of financial misconduct of which he was cleared in court.  He was independent for a time before entering the Chaldean Catholic Church with many faithful following.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #564 on: January 07, 2010, 07:46:51 PM »

Just recently a Bishop was defrocked for trying to have the COE become Roman Catholic (Ashur Soros).

Mar Bawai was always pro-union, which is why I assume he was involved at the top levels of the Assyrian/Catholic dialogue, which I noticed has resumed.  Having read the court proceedings it certainly seems to me that Mar Bawai was dismissed more for pointing out the sexual misconduct of clergy and misuse of funds and requesting reform which fell on deaf ears at the Synod then his ideas about reunion.  In turn, he was himself accused of financial misconduct of which he was cleared in court.  He was independent for a time before entering the Chaldean Catholic Church with many faithful following.
Now I remember this story. I thought that it was a beautiful day when these Christians entered into the Catholic Church.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #565 on: January 07, 2010, 09:55:58 PM »


They are individuated instances, you for example are not less human in your human qnome than Minas or Papist or myself. Only God has three and we have only one.

What do you mean "God and has three and we have only one"?

Also, could you clarify what you mean by "parsopa"? I have a vague idea of what it means, but I just want to make sure we are on the same page.


Hypostasis was a LONG time ago used interchangeably with Qnome during debates held by the COE, but it became outdated  as the meaning changed slightly and started being identified with "person".

When was that? I'm curious because I often find that Chalcedonians use hypostasis to mean something more like "person" than Non-Chalcedonians do.


As for the Orthodox Church of the East stuff...hmmm...maybe its just Marco Polo confusing things or just another schismatic group? The COE Canons are stuffed with directives for rebellious clergy which suggests (also based on its history) a long tradition of schismatics. Just recently a Bishop was defrocked for trying to have the COE become Roman Catholic (Ashur Soros). So I wouldn't be surprised.

Well, the Orthodox Church of the East supposedly began to exist as distinct from your church not long after the schism in Persia and India, and only in the past 100 years faded out in Persia, leaving a presence only in India. That's why I was wondering about the title of your church, because if you simply refer to it as "the Church of the East" it seems like it could perhaps be confused with the Orthodox Church of the East.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #566 on: January 07, 2010, 09:57:40 PM »


This is the same guy who our Coptic Metropolitan H.E. Met. Bishoy clashed with when Mar Bawai compared "two persons in one person" to our "two natures in one nature."

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

But "two natures in one nature" isn't even the proper formula of the OOC.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #567 on: January 07, 2010, 11:29:25 PM »

Quote
3. Veneration of images is legimatized by referring to the Mandylion sent to King Abgar of Eddessa as well as to the practice of Mar Mari, the first to have decorated churches with images.

Well, the COE would probably argue something like this "It's ok to worship the Mandylion because God made it just like God ordered the Cherubim in the Ark". So maybe its ok just because this was something God made, not humans.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #568 on: January 08, 2010, 06:25:35 AM »


This is the same guy who our Coptic Metropolitan H.E. Met. Bishoy clashed with when Mar Bawai compared "two persons in one person" to our "two natures in one nature."

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

But "two natures in one nature" isn't even the proper formula of the OOC.

Sure it is.  Two concrete realities existin in a mode as one united incarnate concrete reality.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2010, 06:25:52 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #569 on: January 08, 2010, 07:03:07 AM »

Quote
3. Veneration of images is legimatized by referring to the Mandylion sent to King Abgar of Eddessa as well as to the practice of Mar Mari, the first to have decorated churches with images.

Well, the COE would probably argue something like this "It's ok to worship the Mandylion because God made it just like God ordered the Cherubim in the Ark". So maybe its ok just because this was something God made, not humans.

So then it's not inherently idolatry to worship an image of Jesus.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #570 on: January 08, 2010, 07:09:21 AM »


This is the same guy who our Coptic Metropolitan H.E. Met. Bishoy clashed with when Mar Bawai compared "two persons in one person" to our "two natures in one nature."

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

But "two natures in one nature" isn't even the proper formula of the OOC.

Sure it is.  Two concrete realities existin in a mode as one united incarnate concrete reality.

You're missing the fact that the fullness of a nature both in Cyrillian and Theodorean Christology (only the Byzantines revised this) involves the reality of subsistence. It has never been acceptable to say that hypostasis, in its full meaning, is "two in one" in Christ. Hypostasis is only ever one.

The formula breaks down if you ask the question: "are those two concrete realities independently subsistent?" The answer is clearly "no". One of the concrete realities is dependent upon the other for subsistence and finds subsistence only in union with it. However, if we are to speak of the reality of the Incarnate Logos, we can say, on the contrary, that it is completely subsistent. So, really, the "two concrete realities" and the "one united incarnate concrete reality" are two different categories, and thus we cannot make them sound as if they are the same types of things by saying "two natures in one nature".
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #571 on: January 08, 2010, 01:03:03 PM »


This is the same guy who our Coptic Metropolitan H.E. Met. Bishoy clashed with when Mar Bawai compared "two persons in one person" to our "two natures in one nature."

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

But "two natures in one nature" isn't even the proper formula of the OOC.

Sure it is.  Two concrete realities existin in a mode as one united incarnate concrete reality.

You're missing the fact that the fullness of a nature both in Cyrillian and Theodorean Christology (only the Byzantines revised this) involves the reality of subsistence. It has never been acceptable to say that hypostasis, in its full meaning, is "two in one" in Christ. Hypostasis is only ever one.

The formula breaks down if you ask the question: "are those two concrete realities independently subsistent?" The answer is clearly "no". One of the concrete realities is dependent upon the other for subsistence and finds subsistence only in union with it. However, if we are to speak of the reality of the Incarnate Logos, we can say, on the contrary, that it is completely subsistent. So, really, the "two concrete realities" and the "one united incarnate concrete reality" are two different categories, and thus we cannot make them sound as if they are the same types of things by saying "two natures in one nature".

Of course, I'm not saying both natures are self-subsistent, neither am I saying the character of existence of both natures are the same.  I don't think that formula does break down when I say that.  It simply needs clarification, which you provided.  Every thing we say needs clarification.  In fact, we actually sing in our Psalmody, "one nature out of two."
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #572 on: January 08, 2010, 06:31:36 PM »


This is the same guy who our Coptic Metropolitan H.E. Met. Bishoy clashed with when Mar Bawai compared "two persons in one person" to our "two natures in one nature."

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

But "two natures in one nature" isn't even the proper formula of the OOC.

Sure it is.  Two concrete realities existin in a mode as one united incarnate concrete reality.

You're missing the fact that the fullness of a nature both in Cyrillian and Theodorean Christology (only the Byzantines revised this) involves the reality of subsistence. It has never been acceptable to say that hypostasis, in its full meaning, is "two in one" in Christ. Hypostasis is only ever one.

The formula breaks down if you ask the question: "are those two concrete realities independently subsistent?" The answer is clearly "no". One of the concrete realities is dependent upon the other for subsistence and finds subsistence only in union with it. However, if we are to speak of the reality of the Incarnate Logos, we can say, on the contrary, that it is completely subsistent. So, really, the "two concrete realities" and the "one united incarnate concrete reality" are two different categories, and thus we cannot make them sound as if they are the same types of things by saying "two natures in one nature".

Of course, I'm not saying both natures are self-subsistent, neither am I saying the character of existence of both natures are the same.  I don't think that formula does break down when I say that.  It simply needs clarification, which you provided.  Every thing we say needs clarification.  In fact, we actually sing in our Psalmody, "one nature out of two."

"One nature out of two" is acceptable as it is essentially a rephrasing of "from two natures", but this is not at all the same as "two natures in one". The latter formula implies the condemned "two natures after the union".
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #573 on: January 09, 2010, 02:28:03 AM »


This is the same guy who our Coptic Metropolitan H.E. Met. Bishoy clashed with when Mar Bawai compared "two persons in one person" to our "two natures in one nature."

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

But "two natures in one nature" isn't even the proper formula of the OOC.

Sure it is.  Two concrete realities existin in a mode as one united incarnate concrete reality.

You're missing the fact that the fullness of a nature both in Cyrillian and Theodorean Christology (only the Byzantines revised this) involves the reality of subsistence. It has never been acceptable to say that hypostasis, in its full meaning, is "two in one" in Christ. Hypostasis is only ever one.

The formula breaks down if you ask the question: "are those two concrete realities independently subsistent?" The answer is clearly "no". One of the concrete realities is dependent upon the other for subsistence and finds subsistence only in union with it. However, if we are to speak of the reality of the Incarnate Logos, we can say, on the contrary, that it is completely subsistent. So, really, the "two concrete realities" and the "one united incarnate concrete reality" are two different categories, and thus we cannot make them sound as if they are the same types of things by saying "two natures in one nature".

Of course, I'm not saying both natures are self-subsistent, neither am I saying the character of existence of both natures are the same.  I don't think that formula does break down when I say that.  It simply needs clarification, which you provided.  Every thing we say needs clarification.  In fact, we actually sing in our Psalmody, "one nature out of two."

"One nature out of two" is acceptable as it is essentially a rephrasing of "from two natures", but this is not at all the same as "two natures in one". The latter formula implies the condemned "two natures after the union".

The implication you give it is not that clear to me.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #574 on: January 09, 2010, 04:35:17 AM »


This is the same guy who our Coptic Metropolitan H.E. Met. Bishoy clashed with when Mar Bawai compared "two persons in one person" to our "two natures in one nature."

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

But "two natures in one nature" isn't even the proper formula of the OOC.

Sure it is.  Two concrete realities existin in a mode as one united incarnate concrete reality.

You're missing the fact that the fullness of a nature both in Cyrillian and Theodorean Christology (only the Byzantines revised this) involves the reality of subsistence. It has never been acceptable to say that hypostasis, in its full meaning, is "two in one" in Christ. Hypostasis is only ever one.

The formula breaks down if you ask the question: "are those two concrete realities independently subsistent?" The answer is clearly "no". One of the concrete realities is dependent upon the other for subsistence and finds subsistence only in union with it. However, if we are to speak of the reality of the Incarnate Logos, we can say, on the contrary, that it is completely subsistent. So, really, the "two concrete realities" and the "one united incarnate concrete reality" are two different categories, and thus we cannot make them sound as if they are the same types of things by saying "two natures in one nature".

Of course, I'm not saying both natures are self-subsistent, neither am I saying the character of existence of both natures are the same.  I don't think that formula does break down when I say that.  It simply needs clarification, which you provided.  Every thing we say needs clarification.  In fact, we actually sing in our Psalmody, "one nature out of two."

"One nature out of two" is acceptable as it is essentially a rephrasing of "from two natures", but this is not at all the same as "two natures in one". The latter formula implies the condemned "two natures after the union".

The implication you give it is not that clear to me.

Two natures being in one nature implies that there are still two natures. Otherwise, there are not two natures in the one nature because "two natures" don't even exist.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,074


"My god is greater."


« Reply #575 on: January 09, 2010, 11:18:13 AM »

This is what happens when you don't distinguish between hypostasis and nature.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #576 on: January 09, 2010, 05:44:45 PM »


This is what happens when you don't distinguish between hypostasis and nature.

It's how both the Cyrillians and Theodoreans both did it. The definition of nature that you're talking about didn't show up until about the mid 6th century.

If you really think about it though, there's really no legitimate way to speak about nature other than the former. There's no such thing as a non-subsistent nature.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #577 on: January 09, 2010, 06:06:17 PM »

COE does distinguish between hypostasis and nature. A Kyana is a nature, a Qnome is essentially a hypostasis.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #578 on: January 09, 2010, 06:10:39 PM »


COE does distinguish between hypostasis and nature. A Kyana is a nature, a Qnome is essentially a hypostasis.

Theodore of Mopsuestia recognized that a non-subsistent nature has no reality and is simply an abstract idea.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #579 on: January 09, 2010, 06:12:12 PM »


They are individuated instances, you for example are not less human in your human qnome than Minas or Papist or myself. Only God has three and we have only one.

What do you mean "God and has three and we have only one"?

Also, could you clarify what you mean by "parsopa"? I have a vague idea of what it means, but I just want to make sure we are on the same page.


Hypostasis was a LONG time ago used interchangeably with Qnome during debates held by the COE, but it became outdated  as the meaning changed slightly and started being identified with "person".

When was that? I'm curious because I often find that Chalcedonians use hypostasis to mean something more like "person" than Non-Chalcedonians do.


As for the Orthodox Church of the East stuff...hmmm...maybe its just Marco Polo confusing things or just another schismatic group? The COE Canons are stuffed with directives for rebellious clergy which suggests (also based on its history) a long tradition of schismatics. Just recently a Bishop was defrocked for trying to have the COE become Roman Catholic (Ashur Soros). So I wouldn't be surprised.

Well, the Orthodox Church of the East supposedly began to exist as distinct from your church not long after the schism in Persia and India, and only in the past 100 years faded out in Persia, leaving a presence only in India. That's why I was wondering about the title of your church, because if you simply refer to it as "the Church of the East" it seems like it could perhaps be confused with the Orthodox Church of the East.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,990


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #580 on: January 09, 2010, 09:05:48 PM »

If by Orthodox Church of the East you mean a Miaphysite Church, non existed apart from the Syriac or Armenian Churches in Iraq or Iran.  The Miaphysite Church in India you can thank the Portuguese for.  It didn't exist until some St. Thomas Christians who received their bishops from the Assyrians were cut off from them by the Portuguese and then turned to Miaphysite Antioch.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #581 on: January 09, 2010, 10:07:35 PM »


If by Orthodox Church of the East you mean a Miaphysite Church, non existed apart from the Syriac or Armenian Churches in Iraq or Iran.  The Miaphysite Church in India you can thank the Portuguese for.  It didn't exist until some St. Thomas Christians who received their bishops from the Assyrians were cut off from them by the Portuguese and then turned to Miaphysite Antioch.

Yet I have seen numerous sources indicate that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch at some point not long after the schism introduced an ecclesia in the East parallel to the "Nestorian" Catholicos-Patriarch at Seleucia-Ctesiphon.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #582 on: January 09, 2010, 11:22:39 PM »


They are individuated instances, you for example are not less human in your human qnome than Minas or Papist or myself. Only God has three and we have only one.

What do you mean "God and has three and we have only one"?

Also, could you clarify what you mean by "parsopa"? I have a vague idea of what it means, but I just want to make sure we are on the same page.


Hypostasis was a LONG time ago used interchangeably with Qnome during debates held by the COE, but it became outdated  as the meaning changed slightly and started being identified with "person".

When was that? I'm curious because I often find that Chalcedonians use hypostasis to mean something more like "person" than Non-Chalcedonians do.


As for the Orthodox Church of the East stuff...hmmm...maybe its just Marco Polo confusing things or just another schismatic group? The COE Canons are stuffed with directives for rebellious clergy which suggests (also based on its history) a long tradition of schismatics. Just recently a Bishop was defrocked for trying to have the COE become Roman Catholic (Ashur Soros). So I wouldn't be surprised.

Well, the Orthodox Church of the East supposedly began to exist as distinct from your church not long after the schism in Persia and India, and only in the past 100 years faded out in Persia, leaving a presence only in India. That's why I was wondering about the title of your church, because if you simply refer to it as "the Church of the East" it seems like it could perhaps be confused with the Orthodox Church of the East.
Is there something you intended to communicate by doing nothing more than quoting one of your earlier posts? Huh
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #583 on: January 09, 2010, 11:33:31 PM »

Deacon Lance is correct, there was no miaphysite Church in India before the Portuguese who disconnected the St.Thomas Christians from the COE, these St.Thomas Christians then appealed to Antioch for clergy and received a miaphysite Bishop.



If by Orthodox Church of the East you mean a Miaphysite Church, non existed apart from the Syriac or Armenian Churches in Iraq or Iran.  The Miaphysite Church in India you can thank the Portuguese for.  It didn't exist until some St. Thomas Christians who received their bishops from the Assyrians were cut off from them by the Portuguese and then turned to Miaphysite Antioch.

Yet I have seen numerous sources indicate that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch at some point not long after the schism introduced an ecclesia in the East parallel to the "Nestorian" Catholicos-Patriarch at Seleucia-Ctesiphon.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #584 on: January 09, 2010, 11:41:04 PM »


They are individuated instances, you for example are not less human in your human qnome than Minas or Papist or myself. Only God has three and we have only one.

What do you mean "God and has three and we have only one"?

Also, could you clarify what you mean by "parsopa"? I have a vague idea of what it means, but I just want to make sure we are on the same page.


Hypostasis was a LONG time ago used interchangeably with Qnome during debates held by the COE, but it became outdated  as the meaning changed slightly and started being identified with "person".

When was that? I'm curious because I often find that Chalcedonians use hypostasis to mean something more like "person" than Non-Chalcedonians do.


As for the Orthodox Church of the East stuff...hmmm...maybe its just Marco Polo confusing things or just another schismatic group? The COE Canons are stuffed with directives for rebellious clergy which suggests (also based on its history) a long tradition of schismatics. Just recently a Bishop was defrocked for trying to have the COE become Roman Catholic (Ashur Soros). So I wouldn't be surprised.

Well, the Orthodox Church of the East supposedly began to exist as distinct from your church not long after the schism in Persia and India, and only in the past 100 years faded out in Persia, leaving a presence only in India. That's why I was wondering about the title of your church, because if you simply refer to it as "the Church of the East" it seems like it could perhaps be confused with the Orthodox Church of the East.
Is there something you intended to communicate by doing nothing more than quoting one of your earlier posts? Huh

I was hoping to remind Rafa of my post which he hasn't responded to yet.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Tags: Church of the East Assyrian Aramaic Theodore of Mopsuestia icons Christology 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   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 0.208 seconds with 72 queries.