www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Assyrians Diocese elects for full communion

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus,


I would like to share the following information with the readers of this Forum.

Please follow the link below to read this wonderful news.

Assyrians elect to enter into full commnunion w/ Catholic Church [kaldaya.net]

Blessings,

ProCatholico

Are there two groups of Assyrian Catholics?

When I met with the group of Assyrian Catholics in Sylmar, they were not in favor of unity with the Catholic Church. Have they too changed their minds? They were iconoclasts who did not like statues or icons.

However, it was funny because the women of that parish insisted that they have a statue of Our Lady (of Peace) in the kitchen. They said her presence helps to keep the peace there.

ProCatholico:

Is this the bishop that was suspended by the Assyrian Catholicos? I remember reading that a bishop of the Assyrians had been suspended in the past year. Is this the one?

In Christ,

BOB

Yes, the Bishop that is suspended by the Church of the East Synod is Mar Bawai Soro.

There are two administratively separate branches of the Church of the East - one who's Patriarch resides in Morton Grove, IL (just outside Chicago) is titled the Assyrian Church of the East and one based in Baghdad and which follows the Julian Calender called the Ancient Church of the East. Mar Bawai was from the Assyrian Church of the East and it seems he is a now a Chaldean Catholic bishop if the stories are true.

On onehand, I rejoice over this union. It appears like a true grassroots movement. See Mar Bawai site for letters of approval from several parishes and portions of, and not all in his diocese either. http://www.marbawai.com/

On the other, I worry because the Assyrian Church will surely not be happy about this.

Fr. Deacon Lance

There are videos posted on-line of Mar Bawai Soro receiving the Eucharist at Chaldean Catholic liturgies and even distributing the Eucharist alongside Chaldean bishop of San Diego, Sarhad Yawsip Jammo.

I am troubled by this.

Shouldn't Mar Bawai Soro wait until he is received into full communion with the Catholic Church before receiving the Eucharist in Chaldean parishes?

I know of the communion guidelines between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Church but that applies when there is a moral or physical obstacle to receive the Eucharist in one's own church.

Also, I have been on Assyrian websites which speak very negatively about Mar Soro. He is accused of financial mismanagement.

Relations between the Assyrian Church and the Catholic Church broke down temporarily following Mar Soro's suspension. I wonder what impact his reception into full communion will have on future relations with the Assyrian Church.

I would appreciate any clarifications.

Before we get off into too much speculation:


As Michael has noted, there are 2 Assyrian ecclesiae, 3 if one counts the Chaldeans, and 4 if one counts Mar Bawai's "Diocese" (and whether Assyrians and Chaldeans represent distinct ethnicities is a topic for another thread).

Assyro-Chaldeans are not iconoclasts. There is simply not a strong history of iconography in their culture (although some ancient icons were unearthed a few years back) and no culture of religious statuary developed aming them, despite a strong historical usage of sculpture by their ancestors in pre-Christian times.


I don't see this anywhere and I think it's premature to suggest it.


I have not seen any video of Mar Bawai distributing the Mystery.


Obviously, Mar Bawai is impeded from receiving the Eucharist in the Assyrian Church, so one cannot fault his doing so in a Chaldean Church under the Guidelines or Canon Law.


Since one can find equally egregious claims made against one or more hierarchs of the Assyrian Church on sites supportive of Mar Bawai, I think this type of speculation serves no value and is best left to the respective courts in which the parties are at odds.

Many years,

Neil

The Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East is often willing to share the Eucharist with Catholics and Orthodox - that in itself is not a novelty. Presumably they would not do so with Aryans, if they could find any Aryans who wanted to receive Communion in the first place (the Muslims are Aryans, but don't quite realize it).

Mar Bawai Soro's relationship with his own ecclesiastical authorities is between His Grace and the ecclesiastical authorities of the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East. His relationship with the Chaldean Catholic Church is between him and the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch and Holy Synod unless they wish to grant him the power of "governance", which requires the consent of the Pope according to the current Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

So far as I know - and I may be mistaken - nothing prevents a concelebration of the Eucharist involving clergy of both the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East.

I know absolutely nothing about the financial administration of Mar Bawai Soro's diocese.

Fr. Serge

I agree with Deacon Lance, this is a matter which could seriously and negatively affect dialogue between the Catholic and Assyrian Churches, dialogue which has been long and fruitful.

Additionally, I am concerned that this announcement by Mar Bawai is extraordinarily self-serving. He has, in effect, placed the Catholic Church in a very difficult position - "publicly accept us or be seen as rejecting an offer of corporate reunion and try to explain that to the faithful". That Mar Sarhad has jumped on the bandwagon, publicizing it freely, (see On the Spot [kaldu.org]) doesn't help the situation.

While all want very much to rejoice in any union that brings together more of Christ's faithful, there are times when such events are best quietly managed, off-stage and out of the glare of spotlights, because there is a longer term, potentially greater, good to be achieved by doing so. One cannot help but wonder if this is not such an instance.

Under the provisions of the Eastern Code, it is within the prerogative of a Patriarch to accept a bishop into union.


Whether His Beatitude Mar Emmanuel III will feel free to exercise that right or Rome will decide to reserve a decision to itself in this instance may be telling as to what Rome considers the future of the Assyrian-Catholic dialogues.

I suggest that prayers are much in order for all involved in this matter.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Friends,

A Chaldean Catholic priest I know (who used to use our EC Basilian chapel for services) has indicated time and again how incredibly ecumenical relations between the Chaldeans and Assyrians truly are!

He himself, he said, frequently invited an Assyrian priest to concelebrate with him in the chapel (wonder what the Basilian Fathers thought of this - then again, the Chaldean priest raised their ire by telling him that Nestorius himself was a Basilian ).

One would get the impression that full union between the two was already a reality.

The Assyrians do not have a developed tradition of icons. This is what led some Protestant missionaries, when they came across the Assyrians, to say they had discovered the "Protestants of the East" . But they reverence highly the Holy Cross, the relics of Saints and other religious images.

Like the Ethiopians, the Assyrians have a high degree of Judaic practices in their rites. They refer to their priests as "Rabbi" for instance. They reverence the door-posts of their churches as they enter etc.

They have culturally adapted to the countries in which they live. In India, Assyrian Christians wear their saris on the shoulder opposite to what Hindus do - by this, they are recognized immediately as Christians throughout India.

Then there is the stone tablet discovered in China that outlined the religious practices and beliefs of the followers of the "Tao" - which turned out to be none other than Assyrian Christianity! It outlines the practice of wearing beards by men, praying seven times a day (by all the Christians, not only the clergy), fasting prescriptions and the like.

In the ninth century, the T'ang Dynasty in China saw the Assyrian Church in Tibet grow to a total of 20 bishops and two archbishops!

And in the reign of King Edward Longshanks, an Assyrian priest was said to have visited England and was warmly welcomed. He celebrated the Qurbono/Liturgy and was then engaged in debate by the Catholic theologians there. He was noted to have said that their Church had no tradition of honouring the Pope of Rome . . .

Their former Patriarch, Shimun, was assassinated by a Turkish gunman and his funeral was attended not only by both Chaldean and Assyrian clergy and hierarchs, but also by Armenian church leaders at the time.

Disagreements between Assyrians and the Oriental Orthodox can sometimes be rather nasty. The Assyrians don't find too much sympathy for them among them and this could be why they find union with Rome so much more attractive, among other reasons, and also easier to take, Rome being very respectful of their traditions (which is a fact).

Just some thoughts.

Alex

Bless, Father Archimandrite,

You raise an interesting point with respect to the Arianism of Islam.

I would respectfully disagree with you on the basis of what we know of Arianism as it was.

Today, we tend to call "Arian" anyone who doesn't accept the Divinity of OLGS Jesus Christ, including Jehovah's Witnesses.

The reason such an appellation is wrong is found in the nature of historic Arianism.

There were about three different kinds of Arianism, all of which affirmed that Christ was actually MORE than just a man, although less than perfect God. The Gothic Arian bishop Ulfilas, who wrote an Arian creed, and who was said to have ordained St Nicetas the Goth a priest, believed that Christ was indeed "a great God and Saviour" but denied He was fully equal to God the Father.

In fact, all the Arian sects worshipped Christ and gave Him Divine worship even though they denied He was fully God. They all believed He reflected the fullness of God in His Person as the Word of God, even though they denied He Himself was fully God.

And they also had their saints, a number of whom, as you know, continue to be in the Catholic and Orthodox calendars (St Artemius the Dux Augustalis of Egypt, Sts Nicetas and Sabbas the Goths, St Dorotheus of Thrace and others). They had their own liturgical (and architectural) (Gothic) tradition and the Mozarabic Rite in Spain is an offshoot of this ("Epiclesis" by Fr. Stepan Chabursky).

In fact, the Bollandists uncovered an unknown saint under June 6th called "St Artotis." Upon further research, they discovered that an Arian scribe had deliberately placed the name of the arch-heretic Arius into the Catholic calendar under this altered name and that Arius was in the calendar for centuries!

Add to this the fact that the one Catholic Church of the first millennium acknowledged the validity of Arian sacraments (otherwise St Constantine would have been in trouble when he received Arian sacraments on his death-bed).

And, to paraphrse your own words to me years ago, the Muslims "being short on sacraments" could not possibly approximate the Arians' status in the eyes of the Church.

Arian missionaries baptized countless thousands of converts and when the Arian heresy fell, those Christians were not rebaptized and their inherited traditions were simply appropriated by the Church etc.

We see vestiges of anti-Arianism as late as the sixth century in the Rule of St Benedict when that Holy Father laid down that the Orthodox doxology "Glory be" was to be recited at the end of each and every Psalm - and that to underscore Orthodox Trinitarian theology.

The Arians, as we know, were quick to adapt their views to Orthodox theological expressions such as "Glory be to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit" and so try to prove the correctness of their heresy.

But in no way can Arian Christianity, no matter how heretical, be equated to the views of Islam.

Alex

Dear Dr. Alex,
The disagreements with the Oriental Orthodox seem nasty because the Syriac Church claims the Church of the East head was established under her, and that the CoE Catholicos is subject to the Syriac Patriarch even to this day! The Syriac [Orthodox] Church also says that this division of "Eastern" and "Western" Syriac is a Western European creation - that both are legitimate forms of the Syriac Rite with local usage differences.. it is a valid point, since the Syriac Church in India (other than the Chaldean-Syrian Church) has elements of both Eastern and Western Syriac because of socio-political circumstances.

They are posted on the Saint Peter Chaldean eparchy website: http://www.kaldu.org/WeeklyNews.html
Scroll down to where it says "Chaldean Community News" and click on "Mass in San Jose" or "Mass in Turlock".

Here is another link with videos and photos:
http://www.kaldu.org/2007/9_September/index1.htm



Mar Soro is not completely impeded from the Eucharist as he continues to celebrate the Holy Qurbana in parshes belong to the Ancient Church of the East.

Sure the Arians were Christians and the Muslims are not, but there are many beliefs in common.

From wikipedia (not the best source):

Dear Byzantophile,

Happily, the Orthodox Church rejects the privilege of infallibility for any of its hierarchs!

There is a desire to "pigeon-hole" and categorize modern movements.

In fact, the view that Arianism was "a creature made by God" is not what all Arian sects believed. And they certainly rejected the notion that He was an angelic creature (this is akin to what the Jehovah's Witnesses say). So you are right, wikipedia is not the best source!

In fact, schools of Hinduism are extant that accept Jesus as a prophet in the same way (in New Delhi there is a temple that worships Jesus as the ninth avatar of Vishnu).

The point is that Arians saw Jesus not as a prophet of any kind, but as other Christians do, as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy - they just disagreed that He was fully God and there was no agreement among them on this score either.

The main theoretical stumbling block was not whether Jesus was Divine - the main one for Christians at this time was Jesus' equality to the Father. Arianism, showing Jesus as less than Divinely equal to the Father, appeared attractive and even "reasonable" to Christians - indeed at one time the majority of Christians in the Roman empire subscribed to Arianism.

Alex