The Assyrian Church of the East

[Assyrian Lector]

So you admit he bribed people or not? I understand that my God hates those who bribe, how then is this man a saint?

Were can we start?

Did Abraham's servant bribe Laban? Did Jacob bribe Esau?  Did Jacob bribe Pharaoh?

Did Constantine bribe the Council of Nicea?

Does that make a bribe right?

And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.

Whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household, but he who hates bribes will live.

And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.

[Assyrian Lector]

Sorry guys,

I should not judge Cyril, I may be judging a man who repented of any wrong doing he done and is reclining with our Lord.

Please forgive me, this is not why I come here, I come so that I can represent our Church in a manner that upholds truth.

My apologies and again please forgive me brethren.

[zekarja]

Um, I'm not sure to be honest? I don't think it is a canonized piece of writing. But I will find out for you,

Isn't it a simply a defense of his position?

It is a defense of his position. I was wondering if your church agreed with his defense?

[Assyrian Lector]

Well assuming that we didn't condemn him in the first place I fail to see why we wouldn't agree with his writings. From the very little I know of him and his writings, he vehemently denied the charges laid against him. Don't forget he wasn't one of ours, he was never part of our Church and we were advised of the council and its implications about 85 years after the fact.

[zekarja]

Well assuming that we didn't condemn him in the first place I fail to see why we wouldn't agree with his writings. From the very little I know of him and his writings, he vehemently denied the charges laid against him. Don't forget he wasn't one of ours, he was never part of our Church and we were advised of the council and its implications about 85 years after the fact.

I see. Thanks!

[William]

Don't forget he wasn't one of ours, he was never part of our Church and we were advised of the council and its implications about 85 years after the fact.

Could you elaborate on this? When I think of Assyro-Chaldean Christianity I tend to think of Nestorianism.

[Assyrian Lector]

According to Chalcedon the idea that Christ was one incarnate nature was tossed out the door and the orientals deemed heretical, so who is orthodox and what is the definition thereof?

[Assyrian Lector]

We are labelled nestorian only because we didn't condemn him. We were not founded by him nor was he our bishop nor did we even know of him! This is a misconception, our Church was and has always been independent of outside influences.

[William]

Is Nestorius a saint in your church?

[Assyrian Lector]

I don't ever recall us venerating him or celebrating a feast day etc. I know we label him the bloodless martyr but he is not considered a saint to my knowledge.

[Iconodule]

According to Chalcedon the idea that Christ was one incarnate nature was tossed out the door

Not exactly.

[Assyrian Lector]

Care to explain?

[Severian]

It is interesting how both the OO and the Assyrians both interpret Chalcedon similarly, but take said interpretation in opposite directions.

[Assyrian Lector]

Please don't take my opinion as Church dogma, I am merely trying to learn about these issues.

[Iconodule]

Care to explain?

St. Cyril's "One Nature" was not rejected at Chalcedon, just reworded and clarified. It is still acceptable to say "one nature" in the Orthodox Church, provided it is done with the proper understanding.

[minasoliman]

Hi Assyrian Lector,

Are any of Mar Babai the Great's works translated in English for people to read?

[witega]

According to Chalcedon the idea that Christ was one incarnate nature was tossed out the door

Not exactly.

The Council of Chalcedon introduced a new definition to make clear Monophysitism (in the strict theological definition of the term) was a heresy. But in the same Definition, Chalcedon strongly reaffirmed not only the entirety of Ephesus I but St. Cyril's synodical letters against Nestorius as well, placing them in the same category as Nicea (and as its own definition).

OO (and apparently the COE) have traditionally seen Ephesus and Chalcedon as being somehow opposed, but EO see them as a matched pair. A Monophysite like Eutyches could affirm Ephesus but not Chalcedon; Nestorians could agree with Chalcedon by not Ephesus. EO affirm both as two alternate ways of expressing the same Christological truth, each specifically phrased in a way to show the line between that truth and the respective heresy the council was called to deal with.

Nicea's introduction of the term 'homoousious' did not involve a rejection of previous language correctly expressing the relationship of the Father and the Son (such as John 1:1). But Nicea added the term because Arians had shown the ability to accept the Gospel of John while twisting the words to agree with their heresy. In the same way, Chalcedon did not reject anything about the previous Ecumenical Council at Ephesus. It added to it because Eutyches had shown the ability to affirm Ephesus even while holding that 'the Incarnate Christ was not consubstantial with us'.

[minasoliman]

I understand that Metropolitan Mar Bawai Soro (who is no longer part of the Assyrian Church) used to say in dialogues with the Syriac Orthodox Church that the Assyrian Church does mention Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Diodore of Tarsus in her litanies.

[Assyrian Lector]

No he is not mentioned in the liturgy, I serve as a lector and can confirm this. I'll answer the other posts later brothers as I am at work typing on my mobile! Which is quite annoying. God bless.

[Cavaradossi]

I for one am quite happy to see that we have somebody who might be able to speak a little about the faith of the Church of the East, as this could potentially be a good learning experience for all involved. I hope that everybody will remain calm so as not to drive our chances of learning things into the ground by giving into the temptation to engage in polemics.

A question for you, Assyrian Lector, is this chart below (also posted earlier in this thread) an accurate depiction of your Church's Christology?

[CoptoGeek]

A very belated welcome to the forum, Assyrian Lector!  I hope to see you become an active poster here.

I greatly admire the Assyrian people and pray that one day relations between our two Churches improve.

[CoptoGeek]

Hi Assyrian Lector,

Are any of Mar Babai the Great's works translated in English for people to read?

Mina, if you have access to an academic library, you should be able to obtain the following book:

Chediath, Geevarghese, The Christology of Mar Babai the Great. Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India 49. Kottayam, Kerala: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, 1982.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/christology-of-mar-babai-the-great/oclc/10975697

As I understand, it's the standard text for for studying Mar Babai the Great's Christological writings.

[CoptoGeek]

Don't forget he wasn't one of ours, he was never part of our Church and we were advised of the council and its implications about 85 years after the fact.

Could you elaborate on this? When I think of Assyro-Chaldean Christianity I tend to think of Nestorianism.

The 'Nestorian' Church: A Lamentable Misnomer
by Sebastian Brock, The Oriental Institute, Oxford University

excerpt:

"The Church of the East undoubtedly lies at the Antiochene end of the christological spectrum, but that does not make it Nestorian - just as Pope Leo's allocation of Christ's different actions to, now his divine, now his human nature, does not make him into a Nestorian either, even though that is what his theological opponents called him. Just as in politics today a rightwing politician might try to smear his socialist opponent by calling him a communist, so in the religious polemics of the fifth and sixth centuries one side would try to put the other side into disrepute by calling it by the name of someone, or some party, that had already been publically condemned as heretical. Since Nestorius had been condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, 'Nestorian' was a convenient dirty word with which to tar any of one's theological opponents who followed the Antiochene christological tradition."

https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2396&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF

[William]

Assyrian Lector,

Does the Assyrian Church of the East celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos?

[Deacon Lance]

I understand that Metropolitan Mar Bawai Soro (who is no longer part of the Assyrian Church) used to say in dialogues with the Syriac Orthodox Church that the Assyrian Church does mention Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Diodore of Tarsus in her litanies.

They are commemorated on the Feast of the Greek Doctors which is the fourth Friday after Theophany.

[Deacon Lance]

Does the Assyrian Church of the East celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos?

Yes, on August 15.

[Hiwot]

It seems as though my Church has been grossly misrepresented here, I am a Lector in the Assyrian Church and will gladly answer any questions regarding the doctrines of my church that you may have.

Just to clarify we do not believe in two sons or two sonships. We believe in one son, perfect man and perfect God in the same manner as you do, we confess the same faith worship the same God take the same sacrament and maintain the same apostolic succession that you hold to.

God bless.

Welcome to the forum, its great to have you in here, and I personaly would appreciate it  if you can further clarify your statement above the one I put in bold.

selam to you

Hi, not sure where the ambiguity lies? We believe in the power of sacraments, we hold onto Apostolic succession, we confess one Lord Jesus as both perfect Man and perfect God. We have not strayed from our roots or the teaching of our forefathers and as a testimony to the world miracles do occur in our churches, Christ, the Blessed Virgin and many Saints have appeared to the faithful.

The main difference between us and the EO is that we say Mary is the Mother of Christ who is God in the flesh so in actually fact we know that she is the Mother of God because Christ is God. But again to an Assyrian to state Yima't Allaha is linguistically and culturally perplexing because the term Allaha is reserved for the entirety of the God head.

In Aramaic the term Son of God is pronounced Bar' Allaha, so for us it is logically incoherent to name her Yima't Allaha as it connotes that Mary bore the God head, which we all know isnt what occurred and which we also know as Assyrians isn't what you mean by the term Theotokos.

thank you for taking the time to explain dear, What I understood from your reply is :
=> calling her Theotokos/  Yima't Allaha means to you that she is the source of the Divinity, like we say The Father begot the Son from all Eternity.

yet you also understand that those of us who use the Theotokos are not saying that she is the source of Divinity when we call her the Birthgiver of God.  we are referring to her giving birth to the Eternal Logos in Flesh.

so knowing this, do you think it is an unacceptable title for her?

Also at present time do you personaly and your church collectively use it?

Thanks for your patience 
Selam to you.

[Papist]

I for one am quite happy to see that we have somebody who might be able to speak a little about the faith of the Church of the East, as this could potentially be a good learning experience for all involved. I hope that everybody will remain calm so as not to drive our chances of learning things into the ground by giving into the temptation to engage in polemics.

A question for you, Assyrian Lector, is this chart below (also posted earlier in this thread) an accurate depiction of your Church's Christology?

What exactly does "Qnoma" mean? This diagram is very disconcerting.

[Severian]

^'Qnome' is a cognate with the Arabic 'iqnoom', actually. They both mean 'hypostasis'.

[Papist]

^'Qnome' is a cognate with the Arabic 'iqnoom', actually. They both mean 'hypostasis'.

Well then, this diagram seems to suggest that Christ was a composit of two different hypostasis. BIG PROBLEM!!!

[Deacon Lance]

^'Qnome' is a cognate with the Arabic 'iqnoom', actually. They both mean 'hypostasis'.

But  Assyrians do not use/mean hypostasis in the same way as Miaphysites and Chalcedonians which was the problem in the first place.

"In the Church of the East there is no more credible source for understanding the Christology of the "Nestorians" than Babai the Great's Book of the Union. In it we get a glimpse into the mind of one of the prominent defenders of Antiochene thought in the East and one who lived at the time the Church there officially adopted "Nestorian" terminology. It is important to stress that this terminology was not new to the Church, but had been the common currency of theological and Christological discourse among Syriac-speaking Christians in the East for generations. It should not be abstracted from its cultural environment, nor should the images and impressions it evoked among those who employed it (and their hearers) in its unique linguistic setting be ignored and the whole of it forced to fit exactly into a Byzantine (or modern western) mold. It is the language of a distinct Christian culture, rich in the traditions of those who brought Christianity to the Eastern empire from the "West". To reach a "Chalcedonian" objective of one subject "person" in two uncompromised substantive "natures", the dyophysites felt required to affirm the hypostatic integrity of each nature. Babai, being one of those who participated in the "debate" of 612, felt the term qnoma could not be dispensed with in addressing the threat posed by monophysism to the essential integrity of Christ's humanity and divinity. It is instructive to know what he himself meant by this term which he employed.

In his Fourth Memra (seventeenth chapter) Babai defines his terms for us. First let us consider his definition of qnoma/hypostasis:

"A singular essence is called a `qnoma'. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one [numerically] among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome [only] by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its `pars\opa'. With rational creatures this [uniqueness] may consist of various [external and internal] accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures [as also with the rational] the combination of various contrasting features. [Through the pars\opa we distinguish that] Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole [but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.]."

Here Babai sets forth his understanding of qnoma as being a representative exemplar of a general species. It is the essence of a given nature in concrete, realized form. It is the essential substratum upon which a pars\opa is based. It is nature undifferentiated in any way from exemplary qnome of the same nature except for number, but differentiated both in number and essence from exemplary qnome of other natures. This substratum of nature is further individualized only by the addition of accidents, phenomena which are not of the essence of a given nature, but which make it possible to distinguish one qnoma from another. Nature is general and descriptive: qnoma is specific and exemplary. When Babai speaks of Christ as "God and man", he insists on specificity: a divine qnoma (not the Holy Trinity) and a human qnoma (not mankind in general).

On the subject of pars\opa Babai has this to say:

"Again, `pars\opa' is the collective characteristics of a qnoma which distinguish it from other [qnome of the same species]. The qnoma of Paul is not that of Peter, even though the nature and qnoma [of both of them] is the same. Each of them possesses a body and soul and is living, rational, and fleshly [that is, they are each a hypostatized nature], yet through their pars\ope they are distinguished from one another by that which is unique to each of them-stature, for instance, or form, or temperament, or wisdom, or authority, or fatherhood, or sonship, or masculinity, or femininity, or in whatever way. A unique characteristic distinguishes and indicates that this [man] is not that [man], and that [one] is not this [one], even if this and that are of the same nature. Because of the unique property [or pars\opa] which a certain qnoma possesses, one [qnoma] is not the other one."

Here that which is not of the essence of an exemplary nature but a property possessed by it which distinguishes it from others of its kind, in combination with other such characteristics, comprises the pars\opa of a given nature. Here Paul becomes Paul and not just "man" and is distinguished from Peter, whose qnoma does not otherwise differ from Paul's except in numerical distinction. Paul not only looks different from Peter (hair color, height, weight, complexion, etc.) but acts differently, reflecting underlying differences in abilities, talents, interests, etc.-the characteristics of his pars\opa. Paul becomes a subject of interest on his own, not just as a specimen of "manhood". And the integrity of his identity is bound up in the fact that his pars\opa is uniquely his and not another's, whereas the integrity of his qnoma lies in its faithful reflection, in exemplary form, of the exact nature of any other ordinary man."

http://web.archive.org/web/200012031418/http://www.cired.org/east/nest.html

[CoptoGeek]

From S. Brock's paper I previously posted:

2. Even where the three Greek terms (or their Syriac equivalents) are used, different people understood them in different ways. Thus, for example, to the Church of the East, the term kyana, or 'nature' (corresponding to Greek physis), was understood as being close in meaning to ousia, or 'essence'. 6 To the Henophysites, however, physis was regarded as being closer in meaning to hypostasis. This difference of understanding of course had important implications for the way in which the terms were used in Christological statements.

3. Related to this second point is a third. The Greek term hypostasis is represented in Syriac by the word qnoma, which has a much wider range of meanings than the Greek has. When the Church of the East uses qnoma in connection with 'nature' it usually speaks of 'the two natures and their qnomas\ where qnoma means something like 'individual manifestation': a qnoma is an individual instance or example of a kyana (which is understood as always abstract), but this individual manifestation is not necessarily a self-existent instance of a kyana. Thus, when the Church of the East speaks of two gnome in the incarnate Christ, this does not have the same sense as two hypostaseis, where hypostasis does have the sense of self-existence. Unfortunately some European translators have confused the issue even more by perniciously rendering qnoma as 'person', as if the underlying term was parsopa (i.e. Greek prosopori), thus implying that the Church of the East believed that there were two persons in Christ, in other words the classic definition of 'Nestorianism'. (Whether or not Nestorius actually taught this, however, is disputed, and even if he did, then what he really meant by this terminology is far from clear).

[Severian]

But Assyrians do not use/mean hypostasis in the same way as Miaphysites and Chalcedonians which was the problem in the first place.

I am willing to give the Assyrians the benefit of the doubt and agree that they do not necessarily use the word 'hypostasis' the way the Deutero-Constantinopolitan Chalcedonians do, I was simply translating the word. In any case, even St. Severus of Antioch describes Christ humanity as "hypostatic" or "individually designated", but he does not understand the 'hypostasis' the way Chalcedonians do, either. In fact, I almost want to say that the Assyrians understand the word "qnome" in a way similar way to St. Severus.

But thank you for the interesting post, Dcn. Lance.

[Assyrian Lector]

Wow guys thanks so much for the warm welcome I am sincerely choked up! I love you all and will answer your questions when I have a spare moment. I work full time, serve the Church and am studying for a degree and to add to that I have a wife who loves spending time with me! hopefully I get some  time in the next few days.

[minasoliman]

But Assyrians do not use/mean hypostasis in the same way as Miaphysites and Chalcedonians which was the problem in the first place.

I am willing to give the Assyrians the benefit of the doubt and agree that they do not necessarily use the word 'hypostasis' the way the Deutero-Constantinopolitan Chalcedonians do, I was simply translating the word. In any case, even St. Severus of Antioch describes Christ humanity as "hypostatic" or "individually designated", but he does not understand the 'hypostasis' the way Chalcedonians do, either. In fact, I almost want to say that the Assyrians understand the word "qnome" in a way similar way to St. Severus.

But thank you for the interesting post, Dcn. Lance.

Yes, St. Severus does acknowledge that hypostasis does not mean person, even though some may have used it to mean prosopon.  However, he does also give the possibility of hypostasis being a prosopon on basis of the concrete existence of the whole, whether compound or simple hypostasis.  So to St. Severus Christ was a compound hypostasis.  One could say that in fact, when it came to the term "hypostasis", St. Severus seemed to be able to unite the prosopon party (those who say hypostasis is prosopon) with that of the qnome party (those who say hypostasis is an individuated existence), so as to show the complications of the term, used as an existence of an essence, while having it also become understood as the way in which the whole of the person exists.  It is why St. Severus while acknowledging that each nature of Christ is hypostatic (that is they really each exist), there is still one hypostasis (both natures are a unit together).

[Severian]

^Yes, good post. I think the main problem in Assyrian theology is that they are not willing to say that the Divine Hypostasis suffered, and they still confess an ontological duality/separation within the hypostases of Christ. So, even if they do not confess "two persons" in Christ, if they truly believe in two distinctly acting units within his person, that is still the logical corollary their theology leads to.

[Severian]

Wow guys thanks so much for the warm welcome I am sincerely choked up! I love you all and will answer your questions when I have a spare moment. I work full time, serve the Church and am studying for a degree and to add to that I have a wife who loves spending time with me! hopefully I get some  time in the next few days.

May the Lord continue to bless you!

[NicholasMyra]

If the personal/specific Kyana to which the Son is united is called "Jesus Christ" or "a man" then it is indeed Crypto-Nestorianism.

If by human Kyana you mean the human characteristics one might contemplate a specific human being having, then sure.

[Shanghaiski]

But Assyrians do not use/mean hypostasis in the same way as Miaphysites and Chalcedonians which was the problem in the first place.

I am willing to give the Assyrians the benefit of the doubt and agree that they do not necessarily use the word 'hypostasis' the way the Deutero-Constantinopolitan Chalcedonians do, I was simply translating the word. In any case, even St. Severus of Antioch describes Christ humanity as "hypostatic" or "individually designated", but he does not understand the 'hypostasis' the way Chalcedonians do, either. In fact, I almost want to say that the Assyrians understand the word "qnome" in a way similar way to St. Severus.

But thank you for the interesting post, Dcn. Lance.

And it just got colder in hell, but that's okay, because all of it is now breaking loose...

[PeterTheAleut]

The posts Rafa999 asked to be submitted on his behalf have been removed from this thread. Please do not submit anything more that he requests be submitted. He is muted, which means he is also not permitted to have anything submitted through the back door of other posters.

[Assyrian Lector]

Hi All,

I am so sorry for not replying in a timely manner, my life is so hectic due to my many commitments, so it is difficult to find a spare moment to provide substantive answers to your questions. I will be taking a break from Uni starting in March and God willing I will post answers to your questions and fellowship with you all during my time off.

I also need to research our own theology concerning Christ's natures and from what I do know I honestly believe there is not much difference in what we all affirm. I believe that semantics have a lot to do with the confusion.

I would do anything to see us unite as one Church in Christ; I would prefer it over winning any amount of money through a lottery or anything else that the world would offer me. I would honestly cry tears of joy and would mean more to me than words could describe.

God willing, through Christ all things can be accomplished.

May the prayers of the Theotokos be with you all.

[Deacon Lance]

^Yes, good post. I think the main problem in Assyrian theology is that they are not willing to say that the Divine Hypostasis suffered, and they still confess an ontological duality/separation within the hypostases of Christ. So, even if they do not confess "two persons" in Christ, if they truly believe in two distinctly acting units within his person, that is still the logical corollary their theology leads to.

But Chalcedonians refuse to say the Divine Nature (Physis) suffered.  It cannot, it is impassible.  The Divine Person Jesus Christ suffered through his human nature.

[Severian]

^Yes, good post. I think the main problem in Assyrian theology is that they are not willing to say that the Divine Hypostasis suffered, and they still confess an ontological duality/separation within the hypostases of Christ. So, even if they do not confess "two persons" in Christ, if they truly believe in two distinctly acting units within his person, that is still the logical corollary their theology leads to.

But Chalcedonians refuse to say the Divine Nature (Physis) suffered.  It cannot, it is impassible.  The Divine Person Jesus Christ suffered through his human nature.

Which is basically what I just said. The problem is the hesitance of the Assyrians to confess that "the Word suffered in the flesh".

[NicholasMyra]

Because of Syrian Neoplatonism 

[cyro]

I don't want to start a new thread, so I decided to ask it here.

I'm interested in the origin of The Assyrian Church of East, but from their perspective.

I found this information: It is an Apostolic church, established by the apostles St Thomas, St Thaddeus, and St Bartholomew. St Peter, the chief of the apostles added his blessing to the Church of the East at the time of his visit to the see at Babylon, in the earliest days of the church: "... The chosen church which is at Babylon, and Mark, my son, salute you ... greet one another with a holy kiss ..." ( I Peter 5:13-14).

http://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches/regions/north-america/united-states-of-america/holy-apostolic-catholic-assyrian-church-of-the-east.html

Do Assrians believe that Peter was literally in Babilon, and it didn't mean he was actualy in Rome?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Topic: The Assyrian Church of the East