www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Canonical Status of Mar Bawai Soro?

I agree! His Excellency should not be "punished" for becoming Catholic. Thankfully, that has not been the case. As seen from the recent official newsletter [kaldu.org] of the Chaldean Diocese of Saint Peter, he continues in active ministry within the diocese.

Peter J:

Christ is in our midst!!

We're not talking about laymen. We're talking about a man who was canonically deposed from all clerical functions and excommunicated from the Church. We're also talking about a move that slaps the other members of his Synod in the face by allowing him to become a member of the clergy in a parallel body without regard to the canonical tradition that is common to both.

This gentleman advocated communion with Rome to the point that his brethren, for whatever reason, seemed to think action needed to take place. They took it.

One step further with this: what does this look like in Constantinople or Moscow? Sophia (where they already don't take part in any ecumenical dialogue)? Latin triumphalism ala Florence and Lyons?

This isn't you or me moving from one place to another. This is a top cleric. And from the reports it's already caused a distancing of the two Churches that had been in a rather good state before this.

So we sacrifice Our Lord's prayer "that all may be one" on the altar of this incident?



If we're not at the point where we respect each other, then we're seriously wasting a lot of time with all the conferences and dialogues we enter into, not to mention the official visits. On the other hand, I maintain that we already are, especially when we consider the agreements we already have in relation to marriages between members of the various Churches. In this case, the Chaldeans and ACOE have a lot of pastoral sharing that could go away.

Bob

Christ is in our midst!!

He's not being "punished" for becoming Catholic. It would be a gesture showing that the canonical tradition continues whether one is Chaldean Catholic or ACOE. As it is, allowing him to function as a cleric says that the Catholic Church passes judgment on everyone not in communion and that other canonical traditions are "lacking" or inferior.

Bob

Bob, I think I may have been misunderstanding you a little bit, until the last round of posts. I thought you were essentially saying that the Catholic Church shouldn't allow him to serve as a priest simply because the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East wasn't happy about him having become Catholic. But now I realize that you're not saying that.

So in the end I guess I would tentatively agree with you that the Catholic Church should "let this guy sit in the pews."

Peter:

Christ is in our midst!!

I guess maybe my "inkling" of what the practical application of Vatican II's idea that people are related to the Catholic Church in various ways means. If we take it seriously that the ACOE is part of us, though not quite perfectly yet, then we must see their canonical tradition--their way of going about judging the way the Church should function--is part of us, even now, though yet imperfectly.

It's either this way or the whole conciliar position on the Eastern Churches is a hoax or a lie.

I understand that the particular punishment they have levied on this man may seem harsh to us, but it is what it is. Either we respect them or we don't and the decision has major implications for our future movement together toward communion. It's been observed above that this relationship has already gone a bit cold. So is the last 45 years of movement on so many fronts to go?

Peter, I don't like the tough questions. But I guess age has something to do with it. I've seen families split over issues like this--child rearing decisions, for example. But at the end of the day, I guess I see that the mission of mending the tear in the seamless robe of Christ is bigger than me or any one individual, though Christ came to let us know we are each very precious as one-of-a-kind originals.

I think there's more, too, but we may never know it all. We have the highest level governing body of an Apostolic Church strip a man of orders, according to their canonical tradition's rules. There are always things that are kept in confidence in these matters that even the lower clergy don't know--it's like a fraternity confidence thing. But they don't take these decisions lightly or for no very serious reason. It would be like the Pope stripping a Cardinal of his rank and deposing him altogether. None of the others would talk about it in the media--they are sworn to papal loyalty as part of their rise to that rank. And this case is akin to having the MP take the man in and give him a high profile role. (This is as close as I can come by analogy; a high ranking post in the ACOE wouldn't even register on most Catholic's radar.) But what gives me pause is that in all of Church history, this is not a lightly taken thing. You don't utterly depose a man and then go so far as to say he can never receive the sacraments for some little offense. Do you understand that this also means no Christian burial, too? And in some thinking it means eternal cut-off because it is an exercise of the Keys of St Peter?

But I'm stopping further comments because the man is serving, the damage seems to bedone, and I have no direct reason to be arguing either way. My point is to clarify for us all what the implications are all around.

Bob

Well for one thing it isn't just a matter of his having become Catholic.

As far as applying the termed "punished" ...

I alluded earlier to the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the (Oriental) Syrian Orthodox Church. These two have gone further than any other churches I can think of in their agreements, including: "Both Churches shall refrain from accepting any faithful from one Church into the membership of the other, irrespective of all motivations or reasons." This is not a punishment of anyone; rather they have decided that, at this point, there is no good reason for anyone to leave one of those two churches and join the other.

Peter J:

Christ is in our midst!!

This is interesting from so many angles. Is there context for this agreement? What is it? In the Middle East, there are many instances of the Churches providing pastoral care for the members of each other's respective members on an unofficial basis.

The really intriguing question is how a Chalcedonian Church and non-Chalcedonian Church could reach such an agreement, especially with the centuries-old anathemas still nto officially resolved. Does this mean that on some level they have resolved their issues? Or is this just pastoral sensitivity like the Melkite Catholics and the Antiochian Orthodox already have.

How does this work out in a mixed marriage where one partner wants to become a member of the other's Church? A no go?

Does this mean that Christian burial and the Mysteries of Anointing and Last Communion are given to each other's members?

If this agreement means all these positive things, it's a good thing. Just wondered about all the implications.

I also wonder how this plays out for other members of the Antiochian Orthodox Church's Communion. What is their take on this agreement?

Bob

Oh yes, I should have provided a link: http://www.antiochian.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=657&Itemid=63

His Beatitude Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly Visits Arizona [kaldaya.net]

Arriving from Iraq, His Beatitude Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, made a pastoral visit to the Chaldean Church of Phoenix, Arizona. On May 15, 2011, the 4th Sunday of Easter, His Beatitude celebrated the Reformed Chaldean Liturgy at Mar Abraham Church in Scottsdale. This was during the on-going renovations of the church sanctuary, which are being done to bring it into full conformity with the authentic Eastern Chaldean apostolic origins and with the new Reformed Chaldean Liturgy as it has been in use at Saint Peter Diocese for over 4 years. The Divine Worship was celebrated by Cardinal Delly with the participation of His Excellency the Diocesan Eparch Mar Sarhad Yawsip Jammo and His Excellency Mar Bawai Soro.

Can anyone recommend a good article about Mar Bawai Soro? I've already read Assyrian Bishop Mar Bawai Soro Explains His Journey into Communion with The Catholic Church [kaldaya.net] (which was a little disturbing, actualy; I thought we left some of that stuff behind when the Balamand Agreement was written). I'm wondering if there's any encyclopedia-type article out there.

Peter J:

The link no longer works.

Bob

The situation partaining to Mar Bawai involves Assyrian inside baseball, as well as conflict between the Assyrian and Chaldean populations. Balamand has nothing to do with this, especially as the Church of the East was not a party to Balamand. It seems exceedingly silly to accept communicatio in sacris and yet not continue discussions about restoring full ecclesial communion.

In agree in part with what you're saying, Stuart: certainly I think what he's saying with regard to ACoE is less troubling than if he had said it in regard to the Eastern Orthodox.

Theophan, I'm afraid I don't remember the westernjournalism link. Could you quote the entire post in which the link was given?

Could you elaborate on this? Have the Assyrians said they aren't going to continue discussions about restoring full ecclesial communion? That would certainly be surprising if they did.

Peter J:

Posted the wrong link. The link from your March 2011 post no longer works.



I don't think they've said it outright, but the relationship has become "cold." And why would it be surprising? One needs to look at the relationship through their eyes. We come together as equals and separated. Then the other equal treats us as if we didn't know what we were doing in relation to disciplining one of our high-ranking clerics or that we didn't have the authority to do what our canonical tradition called for. Then some low-level clerics on the other side take it upon themselves to lecture us on their Latinized traditon, as if it represented who we are--actually it shows that they don't even know who we (and they included) are as Christians who grew outside the Roman/Byzantine Empire. And what does the future of full communion look like? Take a look at the Eastern Catholic Churches and their plight. They need to look to Rome for everything they do. Do we want to live like that? Haven't we done just as well without them for the past 2000 years? A pastoral approach for our people who find themselves far from a parish is one thing, but the rest . . .?

Bob