www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Nestorians

Someone give me the lowdown on the union of the Assyrian Church of the East (hope I have that name right) with the Roman Catholic Church.

Was the ACE required to give up its Nestorianism?

Does it still regard Nestorius as a saint?

Were its members required to acknowledge the councils of the Church?

Dear Linus,

An excellent issue!

Yes, the Chaldean Catholic Church did indeed repudiate "Nestorianism" when it entered into union with Rome.

It also expunged the names of Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus (the "Greek Doctors" as the Assyrian Church calls them) and some others implicated in the Nestorian controversy.

They were also obliged to confess the Virgin Mary as the "Mother of God" rather than the "Mother of Christ" - as can be seen in their liturgy today.

There was also an Assyrian group that became part of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and yet another that joined the Russian Orthodox Church.

Alex

Shlomo Linus,
First, the term Nestorian is considered impolite, to say the least. If you wish to read the documents concerning this issue,please go to:

Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Ch...urch Relations and Education Development [cired.org]

Also, these documents are addressed to the Catholic Church and not just to the Roman Catholic Church.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Yuhannon,

A very good point!

The Assyrian Church of the East has, for long, been called "Nestorian" - even though it has formally repudiated the heresy of Nestorianism (i.e. that in Christ there are two "Prosopa" or "Persons.").

However, there are historic creedal statements that were made by the Assyrian Church in which Nestorianism is strongly suggested - at least to untrained Byzantine eyes .

The most important thing is that there is no longer any disagreement on Christology between Rome and Seleucia-Ctesiphon.

And you are more than correct - the Assyrians are not Nestorians and it would be incorrect (and offensive) to refer to them as such.

Alex

Dear Linus,

A question for you as I see you are a teacher and are interested in Church history.

What is your own view of the Assyrian Church of the East?

Do you believe that it is Nestorian? What do you think of the movement to rehabilitate Nestorius?

Alex

Linus,

Are you talking about the union of the Assyrian Church of the East with the Catholic Church in the 16th century, which was based on the classical "uniate" model (repudiating Nestorius, etc)

or are you talking about the "union" of 1994 where the Assyrians and Rome agreed on Christology and afterwhich concelebrations became common (for instance, the Assyrian bishop Mar Bawai Soro helped consecrate the Chaldean Catholic bishop in the USA in 2001)?

anastasios

How the times do alter! Father John Meyendorff (Memory Eternal) was at the World Council of Churches bash in New Delhi in the early 60s - and came back to report, with a smile, that the "Nestorian" Patriarch, who was among those present, was wearing a Panagia, complete with the inscription "Mitir Theou"! I rather suspect that the remaining traces of "Nestorianism" in the Assyrian Church of the East are the result of a lack of theological education (it has been a very long time since that Church had her own theological schools).
On the other hand, one can still find real "Nestorians" in the classical sense, often among Protestants and occasionally among Roman Catholics. However, these people are unlikely to be aware of their claim to the exotic title of "Nestorian". Heresies always seem to repeat themselves - I've been told that the reason for this is that the devil has a finite intelligence.
Incognitus

Honestly, I don't have an opinion about the Assyrian Church of the East.

The questions with which I opened this thread were genuine. I just wanted to know if the Assyrians came in the front door via an orthodox confession of faith or through the back door of sappy modern ecumenism.

I apologize if I offended anyone by using the term "Nestorians."

I don't think much of the attempt to rehabilitate Nestorius. I'm one of those who think the Fathers knew what they were doing and also that the Holy Spirit guided the councils that condemned Nestorius.

The latter.

Has the latter group repudiated Nestorius and accepted the councils of the Church?

Someone please explain the difference between the Chaldeans and the Assyrian Church of the East.

I appreciate all the answers.

No need to answer those questions. The link provided by Yuhannon answered them for me.

"The Hallowing of Mar Nestorius" shows that this latter Assyrian Church of the East still has not repudiated Nestorius and therefore cannot have accepted the decisions of the Council of Ephesus in 431.

"The Hallowing of Mar Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia" likewise demonstrates that this ACE cannot possibly have accepted the Fifth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople, in 553, either.

The Common Christological Declaration Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East is interesting. It appears the ACE does currently confess an orthodox Christology, although its preference for referring to Mary as "the Mother of Christ our Savior and God" over simply "the Mother of God" troubles me a bit. It seems to imply a certain reservation about the indissoluble union of the two natures in the one divine Person of our Lord, but maybe I am being overly fastidious.

I did not like the following statement, on page 2:
Why is the Lord's Spirit helping us to understand better today what He evidently (as implied by this remark) failed to make clear to the Fathers of the 5th and succeeding centuries?

Did the Fathers misunderstand Nestorius and his followers?

Were the findings of the Council of Ephesus (431) and the subsequent councils the result of a "misunderstanding"?

I thought the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, spoke infallibly in her councils.

If we today decide the councils erred in condemning Nestorius and Nestorianism, what's next?

Shlomo Linus,
You state: "It seems to imply a certain reservation about the indissoluble union of the two natures in the one divine Person of our Lord, but maybe I am being overly fastidious."

It must be understood, that different cultures will understand the same thing slightly differently. The Antiochene School of Theology, which the Assyrian, Syriac and Maronite Churches belong too, has always stressed the humanity of Jesus, therefore their forumlation is in keeping with our School's Tradition.

As to your other point: "[w]hy is the Lord's Spirit helping us to understand better today what He evidently (as implied by this remark) failed to make clear to the Fathers of the 5th and succeeding centuries?"

I would like to quote Archimandrite Taft:

It has always struck me as humorous that the early block of Greek fathers, who condemned such as they thought we Latinized the Church -did so much to Hellenize it by cutting off Latin, Coptic... and so many others who didn't have Greek philosophical term training.

Therefore, it must be understood, that most of those Councils would be considered local to us since they did not pertain to issues that effected our Churches.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Linus,

You raise a most important and fascinating issue - one that invites much discussion!

My own view is that Nestorianism, as an heresy, did in fact exist at the time when the Church condemned it.

The Church identified it and affirmed the Orthodox Christology for all time.

Nestorianism, as Incognitus quite correctly states, is also an heresy that raises its head in other Churches and theologians over time.

For example, some Orthodox theologians have regarded the Western devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus as tending toward Nestorianism.

And certainly Rome borrowed from those theologians and teachers implicated in the Nestorian heresy in doing battle with the heresy of Monophysism.

This is why the Oriental Churches have sometimes suspected Rome of tending toward Nestorianism - and they suspected Constantinople of doing the same, as we see when Pope Dioscoros (the nephew of St Cyril the Great) physically attacked St Flavian of Constantinople etc.

The Orthodox theologians engaging in theological debate with the Oriental Churches have come across a similar difficulty that you raise.

IF it can be shown that the two families of Churches believed in an identical Christology, but used wording that was misunderstood by one another - why then were they divided for 1800 years?

In fact, one may go to an "ecumenical extreme" and say that "Monophysism never existed in the first place etc."

But that would be wrong. The Monophysite heresy not only existed, it was ALSO condemned by those the West (Roman/Byzantine Churches prior to 1054) had condemned as being "Monophysite" themselves!

So does the contemporary finding that the Oriental Churches adhered to an Orthodox Christology, the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria in fact, mean that the Fathers of a bygone age were in error?

Not in the least! Those Fathers assembled in General Council to rightly condemn the heresy of Monophysism - and that stands for all time!

Now comes the question having to do with certain teachers who were condemned for holding the heresies in question.

The fact is that the Holy Spirit Who guides the Church and Her Ecumenical Councils into all Truth gives the Church the freedom to "bind and loose."

The Emperor Saint Justinian himself who had entered into negotiations with the Oriental Churches felt that there was no problem with respect to the dropping of anathemas against teachers once the issue of heresy and schism was resolved and the Churches were restored to full communion with each other.

In fact, the Orthodox Church herself has given us a practical example of this.

As we know, the Church of Georgia was formerly an Oriental Church and of the family of Churches deemed to be Monophysite by Orthodoxy.

This Church came into full Communion with the Byzantine Orthodoxy world, patriarchate and all.

And yet, its Saints and Teachers, who were, in their life-times, condemned as heretics and "monophysites" by Greek theologians, continue to be venerated by the Church of Georgia - and now by worldwide Orthodoxy!

St David of Garesja is a case in point. A defender of the Cyrillian Christology "One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate etc.", he was called "that putrefaction from Georgia" by the Orthodox theologians of his day.

Today, he is in the Orthodox calendar of saints . . .

The Church certainly has the power to lift anathemas against individuals condemned in ages past on the basis of new information etc.

That too is part of the process of the guidance by the Holy Spirit.

But the condemnation of Monophysism and Nestorianism remains in force for all time.

And we would not even consider relations with the Oriental and Assyrian Churches if they did not agree to join with us in condemning those heresies as well.

Alex

Does the power of binding and loosing include the power of self contradiction?

It seems to me he spent more time digging up heretics to anathematize, like Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, for examples.

I'll take your word for it, but I did not know that the Georgian Church was once Monophysite.

I have no problem with that, if that Church accepts the fullness of orthodox teaching, including all the ecumenical councils.

Now this is what does not make sense to me.

The Church is supposed to be infallible in her ecumenical councils through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Yet you say the Holy Spirit can guide us into "new information" by which men formerly known to be heretics can be rehabilitated and even made a part of the Church calendar.

How can that be understood except to say that the Holy Spirit now shows us where He failed to infallibly guide the Church in the past?

What updates are we to expect next week?

That, based on even newer info, the rehabilitations were incorrect?

If the Holy Spirit guides an ecumenical council (for example, Ephesus 431), and that council says, "Nestorius is a heretic" (or words to that effect), how can the Holy Spirit come back 1573 years later and guide the Church into an outright contradiction of that original finding?

Was the Church speaking infallibly when it called him a heresiarch, or not?

If not, then when does the Church speak infallibly?

Great. That's as it should be.

I appreciate your post, Alex. Some of what you said makes sense, but the part about accepting heterodox "saints" does not.

If they were regarded by the Fathers as heretics, how can they - long after their deaths - be cleared of heresy without contradicting those same Fathers?

Perhaps it is possible to rehabilitate men who were never condemned by an ecumenical council. I can see how new info might clear them.

But what of men who were condemned by the Church speaking infallibly in an ecumenical council, men like Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, and Severus of Antioch (I know the last four were Monophysites and not Nestorians)?

How is it possible to rehabilitate them without saying that a supposedly infallible council made an error?

I don't doubt that an Ecumenical Council can't err in its doctrinal teaching.

Maybe anathemas are things that can be wrong though.

Wouldn't bug me much if it were so. The faith is they hypothesis of Scripture--Christ cruficied. That doesn't change. I'm not too worried about whether Severos deserved to be condemned after his death.

anastasios