www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News "Ecclesial Unity" of Mar Bawai's Flock

What about the Melkites (and the Jerusalem Patriarchate followers, the Antiochian Orthodox, etc.)?

I am told that those that did not have a form of Aramaic in their liturgy (Chaldeans, Suryoyo, Assyrians, Maronite) were originally groups of Arabs, Greeks and Romans (and a mixture of them) who supported the Byzantine Empire and then fully adopted the culture and language of the Arab rulers.

From what I know, the first group of Christians identify themselves as indigenous (Aramaic) but the second group do identify themselves as Arabs. In fact the Baath Party (Arab Nationalist Party) was partly founded by Byzantine-Rite Christians.

However, I have read that there are Byzantine-Rite villages where Aramaic is spoken (and it's really surprising that the Aramaic language survived where the local christians did not preserve it in their liturgy).

And regarding the situation in the Assyrian Church of the East, this would make things complicated for the current leadership that does not enjoy the sympathy of an important part of the faithful. On one side, a lot of people will leave the ACE (in the United States) to embrace Catholicism, on the other side this might have a negative impact, the Assyrian Church of the East will be less open to dialogue with the Catholic Church.

The group of Mar Bawai, coming from the ACE, for obvious reasons celebrates the liturgy without latinizations. In recent time, the Chaldean Church issued new liturgical books that removed most of them, but it will be interesting to see if the new Catholics adopt the Chaldean books or preserve those they use.

IMHO, I think that what you say depends on what is meant by "Latinization". Without in any way wishing to impugn the devotion, greatness and heroism of the Chaldean Church, the Chaldean church does retain a lot of "Tridentine" Latinizations (Latin-style copes used as their equivalent of the chasuble, lace albs that would make any TLM-celebrating priest proud, Latin-style miters) as well as "Neo-Latinizations" such as ad populum liturgies (in some areas).

As for the newly revised Chaldean liturgy, it differs significantly from the old Assyrian liturgy and the principles which were invoked to simplify the Chaldean Divine Liturgy are quite similar to those operative in the liturgical reforms of the Latin Rite in the 1960's and 1970's. I am pointing this out, not in order to say that the revised Chaldean liturgy is "bad" -- by no means! -- but rather to point out that what can seem to be "delatinization" and "repristination" for some, may in fact look like a new wave of Latinizations for others (especially since the liturgical reforms in the Latin Church in the 1960's also sought "repristination" and a return to the primitive liturgy of the early Church)

Doesn't the ACE priestly vestment look very close to a Gothic style cope?

As to miters, I think the ACE bishops (or at least the Patriarch) wears a crown.

I actually had the pleasure of sitting down with Fr. Michael Birnie, pastor of St. Thomas Assyrian Parish in Seattle, which was part of the group of Assyrians that recently entered the Catholic Church. He made no mention of adopting a new liturgy; they use an English translation of the Assyrian Qurbono that I gathered he had translated himself some time ago. When I visited the parish last week they hadn't even yet added the Chaldean Bishop, Patriarch, or the Pope to the commemorations yet, though he said he was planning on adding them to the texts ASAP (he's been recovering from a stroke, and that has limited his energy).

Adding those commemorations were the only changes planned, apparently. I'm pretty sure that one of the "conditions" of their entry, if such a term can even properly be used, was that they wouldn't have to abandon anything they already practiced. So far as I know that's perfectly acceptable to the wider Chaldean Church, but I've not heard anything official.

Basically they struck me as "Assyrians in Communion with Rome, with the Chaldean Church". Since the traditional Liturgy of Addai and Mari is now fully accepted by the Catholic Communion, I doubt there will be much impetus for them to change anything. What I did come away with was the impression that these folks have considered themselves Catholic for awhile now, and I bet I would have been welcome to Commune in their parish before things became "official" in recent weeks. They even had pictures of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI in their community room, right beside their parish photos and pictures of their Bishops and Patriarchs.

Of course I'm a total outsider with very little experience with the Assyrian tradition, and I'm only relating what I was told by Fr. Michael, and my general impression.

Peace and God bless!

Shlama Yuhannon,

Assyro-Chaldeans are not Arabs. We are not descendants of Ishmael, son of Abraham.

God bless,

CC

Benedicite!

This an interesting point. The supporters of the Byzantine Empire, probably regardless of ethnic origin, were called Melkites. Indeed, ملكي malakī can mean both "royal" and "monarchist" in Arabic. Following the 1724 schism in the Patriarchate of Antioch between Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox, only the former are called Melkites. However, I find it interesting that the groups are called الروم الكاثوليك الملكيون al-rūm al-kāthūlīk al-malakīyūn and الروم الأرثوذكس al-rūm al-urthūdhuks, literally "Roman" Catholics and "Roman" Orthodox. But of course the Rome to which this refers is the "New Rome," Constantinople.

Indeed, Michel ʿAflaq (1910‒1989), who has been described as the ideological founder of Baʿthism, was born into a Greek Orthodox middle-class family in Damascus. To members of the urban Christian middle class, mainly Greek Orthodox or Greek Catholic, secular Arab nationalism seemed a good alternative to political Islām and perhaps the only way for Christians to achieve equal rights with Muslims in the Arab world. Rural Aramaic-speaking Christians, on the other hand, were for obvious reasons in no position to take part in this middle-class urban movement.

I have been to the small town of Maʿlūlā north of Damascus, where it is said that Aramaic is still spoken (see this recent article [nytimes.com] in The New York Times). The town's two monasteries, however, are Greek Orthodox (St. Thecla) and Greek Catholic (St. Sergius and St. Bacchus).

The question of language has a lot to do with geography. For example, the urbanized Syriac Catholics I met in Damascus spoke only Arabic, while the more rural Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox in Maʿlūlā continued to use at least some Aramaic. Similarly, I believe most urban Maronites speak much better French and English than Aramaic!

This, then, is only one more example of the fact that there is not always a clear correspondence between the liturgical language and the everyday spoken language. As long as the Christian faithful are properly instructed in the meaning of the liturgy, however, I do not necessarily see this as a problem.

Actually, as late as the end of the nineteenth century, the terminology "Melkite Orthodox" was still in some usage for the Antiochians in the Old Country.

Many years,

Neil

Benedicite!

Interesting! Thanks for pointing this out!

Assyrian bishop explains his journey into communion with the Catholic Church [catholicnewsagency.com]

Dear All,

We who just recently came into communion do not actually want a separate jurisdiction from the Chaldean Church. We joined the Church of the East which is in communion with Rome in the understanding that it is better to unite rather than to create another splinter of the Church of the East.

One thing to keep in mind also is that the Chaldean Church right now already has many people who consider themselves Assyrians. That is why on kaldu.org, you will see the diocese for Chaldeans and Assyrians.

Mar Bawai himself is a very humble man. He is awaiting the decision of the Chaldean Church and Rome as to what his role will be, and he does not want to carve up any diocese or create his own jurisdiction.

One comment in regards to what was said about the revised liturgy. The changes made to it are actually quite steeped in the tradition of the early Church of the East. In a lecture given to us deacons, Mar Sarhad was able to reference both Synodical records and the earliest commentaries on the Church of the East liturgy to support the changes that were made to it. The lecture is online on kaldu.org, but unfortunately it is not in English.

In Him,
Anthony

Benedicite!


I wish you all the best and every success in this great work!



From what Fr. Robert Taft, S.J., has said [americancatholicpress.org] about Mar Bawai Soro, he appears to be a zealous pastor and a considerable scholar who will surely be a most valuable and welcome addition both to the Synod of Bishops of the Chaldean Church and indeed to the whole College of Bishops of the Catholic Church.

Shlomo CC,

I understand that, but for most purposes we are Arabs. We have become Arabized. Arab Nationalism was revived by Christians. To use a couple of quotes from Raja Mattar (An Arab Christian):

The renaissance of Arab culture owes a great deal to the many Christian Arab scholars who were among the forerunners in shaping Arab national identity.

The Maronites role, in particular, was of major cultural importance. In Lebanon they are the backbone of its cultural diversity. A Saudi friend once commented that if the Maronites did not exist we would have to invent them!

Is there such a thing as an Arab ethnicity at present? I think not.

There is, however, such a thing as an Arab culture...Culture is the language they speak, the poetry they recite, the songs they sing, the foods they eat, the music they dance to, and the history they share.

Trying to find ethnic slots in which to place various peoples is first an exercise in futility, and second in racism. Cultures do exist, however, and whether we like it or not, whether some scattered thinkers in and outside the Arab world like it or not, whether some self-hating Arabs like it or not, we are - for better or for worse - part of the Arab culture. Arab Christians have contributed a lot to this culture, and they should be proud of their contributions. Those who deny this heritage are reneging on their cultural roots and trying to identify with some extinct civilizations. They are turning their backs on the Christian giants of Arab culture - the Gibrans, the Naimehs, the Bustanis, the Yazigis, the Zeidans, the various Khourys, the Abou Madis, the Maaloofs, the Al-Akhtals (old and new), and yes, the Fayrouzes, the Rahbanis, the Al Roumis - and trying to find their heroes in the tombs of Byblos and the sarcophagi of Egypt.

There are many agitators who have a political agenda and are keen to distort history and statistics to fit such an agenda, imagining ethnic differences where none exist. They are either alien to this culture - or have alienated themselves from it - and are trying to fabricate falsehoods and pass them on as history to uninformed listeners or readers. They are trying to invent for Arab Christians an artificial identity antagonistic to the environment they have always been part of, not realizing -or maybe they are - that by nurturing such a rift they might be creating among Arab Christians an anti-Islamic 'fifth column', disloyal to its own culture and probably imperiling whole Christian communities in the Arab Middle East. And for what? To toady to Israel and its patrons in the U.S.?

The point is we are Americans, Canadians, etc. by culture, we are also Arabs by culture.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Shlama Yuhannon,

Assyrians and Chaldeans have maintained the Aramaic language, poetry, songs, foods, music, and history. Granted, there has occurred a certain amount of Arabization among our people, but it has not been as strong among us Mesopotamians, as it has happened among the Maronites and other Syro-Antiochenes.

You identify yourselves as Arabs, that is up to you. We don't, and we prefer not to be spoken of as Arabs.

I lived in Iraq, and now I live in an American culture with an American citizenship, and I speak English, Arabic, and Aramaic, but I don't identify myself as English or Arab.

CC

Shlomo Chaldean Catholic,



As I stated before, many Maronites directly from the old country do not want to identify as Arabs because of the civil war, but I come from an Arab speaking country, and have do not have a big problem with people calling me an Arab.


Well the U.S. government defines you as an Arab. This is what the Census says:

People providing a general response to the ancestry question,
such as Arab, Arabic, North African, or Middle Eastern (which you are), were also categorized as Arab.


First I have to say that you are using a shibboleth. That is here in America are national language is English, and as a citizen you are an American (which does not have an ethnic component), therefore your use of the English analogy is false. As for how you identify yourself I will respect that but I will point out as I stated before, that many of those that call themselves Arabs are in fact former Christians and Jews that converted to Islam.

Therefore, Arab has moved from the definition of Arabian peninsular tribes, to be those peoples that have Arab Culture and language as their primary language.

Lastly, in nearly all the parishes for the Chaldean Catholic Church here in the United States including both of the Cathedrals have Arabic Divine Liturgies, so that does negate the point that your people have not been Arabized.

As I stated I will call you by what you wish, and lets leave it at that.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Shlama Yuhannon,


As I mentioned, we Assyrians/Chaldeans prefer not to be identified as Arabs, because we are not Arabs. I have no control over what the US government decides to identify us.


I have no problem being called an American, because American is not an ethnicity. I do have a problem being called an Arab, because Arab is an ethnicity, and I am not ethnically Arab.

As for English, that is connected with Anglo-Saxon, and I am not Anglo-Saxon, therefore, I'm not English.


Arab is not our culture, and not our primary language. Some of our people have adopted Arabic in the Middle East, just like some of us have adopted English here, but our traditional language, the language that the majority of our grandparents and parents use in daily conversation is still Aramaic, and always has been.


Yes, we have Arabic liturgies for the sake of those who prefer or need them, just as we have English liturgies as the vernacular language here for the sake of the younger generation that wants it. However, the official language of our Church is Aramaic, and always has been. Our primary liturgy is the Aramaic liturgy. The majority of our people attend the Aramaic liturgy.

Our first ever US-born man ordained a priest is about 30 years old now, and only speaks English and Aramaic, because English is the vernacular and Aramaic is the official. He doesn't know Arabic because Arabic is not the traditional and primary language of our Church. Those priests that come from Iraq know Arabic, but do not speak it as the primary language among the Church and Church community. Aramaic remains the traditional, official, and primary language of our Church.

If you re-read what I wrote, I did not say that my people have not been Arabized, I said that the Arabization has not been as strong among us Mesopotamians, as it has happened among you Maronites and other Syro-Antiochenes.

CC