Cradle American Protestant, frustrated b/c the nearest Assyrian Church is Washington, D.C. I think.

mcarmichael

Or, aside from Nestorius, what do we have in common?

Some people in Chicago say one God in three "qnoma", and one person in Christ Jesus, and that sits alright with me.

If I understand correctly, they use a leavened bread in their liturgy, whereas we always used a Passover Kosher cracker and grape juice when we had crackers and juice.

I found out from an EO guy their tradition but I want to know your tradition.

:)

qawe

'Qnoma' roughly translates to hypostasis, not person (in Arabic, hypostasis is 'qnome', while person is 'shakhs').

The problem is that the Assyrians do indeed say about Christ that he is one person, but that he is 2 qnome, ie 2 hypostases.

The EO and OO both proclaim one person and one hypostasis (ie 1 qnome).

AntoniousNIkolas

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding your question.  Are you saying you want to join an Assyrian Church but there are none near you?  Are you asking what we think of their tradition?  Or are you asking about our tradition?

mcarmichael

qawe said:

'Qnoma' roughly translates to hypostasis, not person (in Arabic, hypostasis is 'qnome', while person is 'shakhs').

I'm suprised that the two words are so similar. Is there some subtle difference in meaning??

qawe

@mcarmichael

No idea, but I suspect any difference is not significant. Otherwise how could they simultaneously affirm 'one person' and 'two qnoma'.

That being said, the orthodoxy of the Assyrian Church is controversial in many Orthodox circles, so there is no universally agreed upon answer to your enquiries.

cyril

Met Hilarion's observation about the Church of the East:

"If by the term ‘Nestorianism’ we are to understand the teaching against which Cyril of Alexandria fought — that is, the teaching about the two different persons in the Son of God which led to the recognition of ‘two sons’— then this doctrine was alien to the east-syrian tradition. Yet east-syrian theologians did speak of two qnome-hypostases in connection with the incarnate Son of God, and the Church of Persia, having not recognized the chalcedonian doctrine of ‘one hypostasis in two natures’, found itself in verbal opposition to the byzantine Church. From the fifth to the eighth centuries, writers of the Church of the East continued to use the christological terminology of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore, and in the Greek-speaking East this was generally identified as 'nestorian'. The Church of the East continued to commemorate Theodore and Diodore after they had been anathematized in Byzantium, and it included the name of Nestorius on the diptychs long after he had been condemned. All of this testifies that the Church of Persia, though not ‘nestorian’ in a strict doctrinal sense, adhered to the theological and christological thought which was rather close to that of Nestorius.

By the end of the seventh century, political circumstances effectively cut the Church of the East off from the byzantine world, which thus became largely irrelevant to it. This further isolation did not, however, lead to any decline in theology and the spiritual life. On the contrary, in the seventh and the eighth centuries the Church of the East reached the highest flowering of its theology: at this time lived and worked such writers as Martyrius-Sahdona, Dadisho', Symeon the Graceful, Joseph Hazzaya, and John of Dalyatha. All of them were primarily mystical writers and did not occupy themselves with christological questions. Little known outside the east-syrian tradition, they constituted what one may call ‘the golden age of syriac Christian literature’. The only representative of this ‘golden age’ to become known throughout the world was Isaac of Nineveh."

by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev. “The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian” (Kentucky: Cistercian Publications, 2000) 24-25.

mcarmichael

Well, you have to give them credit for being Non-Chalcedonian, right? :D

That was a pretty good read, anyway. Thanks for sharing.

minasoliman

I will say that as much as the Assyrian Church's belief seems to still be "up in the air", one big difference is that I feel quite convinced that the Christologies of Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Diodore of Tarsus are heretical in nature.  I don't know any other way one can actually interpret them.  But I do not want to be hypocritical and extend the same condemnation to the Assyrian Church.  However, I have heard some Assyrians state their beliefs in Orthodox manners and others state them in very troubling ways, as if to make Christ sound like He's two people in one.  This needs to be done away with I think.  The EO/OO situation is unique because you will find that despite all polemics, we have Church fathers who practically have believed almost everything in the same manner, if not in all things.  I feel that is quite remarkable.  With the Assyrian Church, if in fact they are "Orthodox", I don't want to end up misrepresenting them or their Christology.  They have claimed that their Christology ultimately is not Nestorius' or Theodore's, but a church father for them named "Mar Babai the Great", whose writings have yet to be translated.  There is one book that is a thesis explaining his Christology, but that book is sadly out of print, so I have not read this.  Nevertheless, to be fair, I think we should reestablish dialogues with them.  That is the consistent view that we should uphold, especially since we expected the same for Western Christians to do for us so that we may clear ourselves from the accusations of "Monophysitism".

mcarmichael

 Hi Mina,

I'm sure you're familiar with the 1994 Joint Declaration the CoE Catolicos signed with the RCC; now, I'm sure you're also aware, that the CoE aren't anywhere near full communion with the RCC, as they have an entirely different Patriarchy.

Anyway, how does it "mesh" with the "Joint Declaration" offered by the Oriental Orthodox, and how do you think the EO would respond if we all agreed?

Or, how does Donatism play into all of this?

heh. :D

minasoliman

I'm not sure how Donatism plays into this.  The Roman Catholic Church is only concerned if they are able to win souls to confess the Papal Primacy.  They have already taken one notable theologian and bishop from the ACoE, Mar Bawai Soro.  The Syriac Orthodox Church had dialogues with him and other bishops.  The dialogues later ended when the Coptic Church intervened.

I said before that I will concede to their Orthodoxy if in fact they are not heretical.  The problem is, as I read Nestorius, Theodore, and Diodore, their theology is very troubling.  The speak about Christ as if He was a person who strove to be perfected and becoming God.  Jesus becomes the most perfect example of what a man should act like, because the Word of God dwelt in Him in perfection.  At times, it seems that they also might have considered the idea that Jesus might have been free enough to choose sin hypothetically, but was so much in unity with the divine will, He did not sin.  This to me spells no different than a prophet or saint of the Church.  Christ is not a man who strives to be God, but a God who became man.  There needs to be a level of asymmetry in Christology, because if that man named Jesus is not truly indeed the Word of God Himself, then God did not become man, and we are not in communion with God, but with a mere anointed man.  Any hint in theology that breaks the communion between man and God, by destroying the divine nature of the Word, by destroying the the human nature of the Word, or by destroying the unity of the divinity and humanity of Word in one identity and existence, of the Word incarnate, then these theologies need reevaluation.  If on the other hand, the ACoE does in fact believe that Christ is the Word of God Incarnate, that the Holy Virgin is in fact the Mother of the Word Incarnate, or God incarnate, and that God became man so that man might become God, then I am willing to concede their Orthodoxy.

mcarmichael

[edit]

mcarmichael

Is Donatism a Coptic thing?

minasoliman

Donatism was mainly a Western heresy that did not believe in confession and repentance after baptism. So I wonder where is the Donatism thing coming from in you?

qawe

minasoliman said:

Donatism was mainly a Western heresy that did not believe in confession and repentance after baptism. So I wonder where is the Donatism thing coming from in you?

I thought Donatism was that sacraments are not valid if performed by unworthy priests?

minasoliman

I always get them confused with the Novatians maybe.  But yes, because they sinned after their baptism (or was it because they apostatized during the persecutions?).  In other words, Donatism is when you sin (or apostatize), then you have forfeited your baptism, and there is no repentance for you.  And any sacraments performed is also considered invalid.

minasoliman

I stand corrected...it was specifically about lapsed Christians and/or "traditors" (both Novatianists and Donatists are practically the same thing).  Lapsed clerics are never readmitted, but lapsed Christians are to go through rigorous repentance and re-baptism.  They caused schism against the Orthodox for "laxity" of taking the repentant/traditors.

The ones who believed Christians who sin can no longer be Christian, that is there is no such thing as repentance after being a Christian, were Montanists.

mcarmichael

I hadn't heard that about re-baptism, I'd heard the Donatists considered the sacraments performed by "traditor" clerics illegitimate.

However I got that from wikipedia, so it's probably slightly inaccurate.

I'll answer your first question anyway. It's because we have so many churches, so many cradle Anglicans, Assyrians, Episcopalians, Catholics, Coptic Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, all of whom (with the possible exception of Lutheran) adhere to succesion, and I don't drive so I wonder if a Roman Catholic cleric could absolve my sins as effectively as a Coptic cleric, according to this theory.

Thanks.

minasoliman

My dear friend, Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, etc are not seperate because they don't accept lapsed clergy, but because they have a different faith, one is an ecclesiological heresy, another is moral heresy, another is also a Christological heresy (assuming it is). Unless I am misrepresenting their beliefs (and I could very well be doing so), the idea that we do not accept their sacraments is not the same as a Donatist rejection. Furthermore, there was once a canon by Pope St. Timothy II and St. Severus that told us not to rebaptize or rechrismate Chalcedonians or Nestorians. And so these men who come from these churches used to be accepted into our church by a statement of Faith, "completing" their sacraments as thought to have been incomplete before.

Just because in certain circumstances, one does not repeat those sacraments does not mean they are valid, but it simply means the correct formula was applied, and the Orthodox bishop completes them to His discretion. Even clergy from other traditions were also received as clergy of those ranks, again "completing" those ranks that were once incomplete, bringing them into the fold in an Orthodox manner.

And so, if there is a good reason not to be united with them, then there is a good reason why there are differences (usually). If perhaps one day, the RCs do not dogmatize their ecclesiological papacy, then perhaps we might consider unity. If Lutherans accept a certain succession and sacramental tradition akin to Orthodoxy, then we might consider unity. If the Assyrians remove a certain Christology (or clarify their beliefs to be unmistakably Orthodox and misunderstood), then we would consider their legitimacy and unity. That's how I see things.

What I would do is be honest with yourself and your research. See why there are differences. And if you're convinced of Orthodoxy, but the nearest church is far, call the parish and see what you can do.

God bless.