Chaldean Patriarch seeks communion with Assyrian Church

(CWN) - The leader of the Chaldean Catholic Church has written to his counterpart in the Assyrian Church of the East, proposing that they bring their churches into full communion.

Chaldean Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako sent a birthday greeting to the Assyrian Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV, and suggested that the two Eastern churches should “begin dialogue for unity, which is the desire of Jesus.” Full union with the Chaldean Church would also bring the Assyrian Church into union with the Holy See, he noted.

“The beginning of this dialogue is urgent today, in the face of great challenges that threaten our survival,” Patriarch Sako wrote, alluding to the uncertain prospects facing the Christian minority in Iraq. “Without unity, there is no future for us,” he said.

The Assyrian Church broke away from Rome in the 5th century, with the Assyrian Church showing sympathy for the Nestorian teachings that were condemned by the Council of Ephesus. However, leaders of the Assyrian Church have distanced themselves from the Nestorian doctrine, and in 1994 a Common Christological Declaration, signed by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Mark Dinkha IV, seemed to resolve doctrinal differences.

The Chaldean Church, which was restored to unity with the Holy See in 1552, shares historical roots with the Assyrian Church, and the faithful of each body share the sacraments. But there is no formal agreement between the two churches.

“If we have recognized confessing the same faith, at this point I am wondering what the obstacles to walk together toward the recognition of full unity among us are,” Patriarch Sako remarked to the Fides news service. The Catholic prelate said that he would “await with trepidation” a reply from the Assyrian prelate.

Comments

  1. Archimandrite GregorySeptember 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM

    The Assyrian Church broke away from Rome? How can that be when they were never under the Roman Patriarchate. The broke communion with the Orthodox and Catholic churches, both East and West.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Byzantine, TXSeptember 17, 2013 at 5:01 PM

      It is a distinctly ultramontane mentality that places subsistence of the Church in the hands of the Bishop of Rome. The Church and Peter are not synonymous. 1 Corinthians 12 comes to mind.

      Delete
    2. Adrian opaDecember 6, 2013 at 4:50 AM

      They may not be under the Bishop of Rome.. but HISTORY tells us that there exists only ONE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. The Assyrian Church of the East has separated itself from the Churches in the Roman empire because they existed within the Persian Empire which is a political adversary of the Romans. Now that no among the said empires exist, no reason for these Churches to separate from one another

      Delete
  2. William TigheSeptember 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM

    This article of mine might be of interest in this context:

    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=21-05-027-f

    There was a tripartite "dialogue process" between the Assyrians and Rome from the late 1980s until about 2002. It was intended to deal with (1) Christology, on which fill agreement was reached in 1994, (2) the sacraments, on which full agreement was reached in 2000 or 2001, and (3) the papacy. In 2002 or 2003 the Assyrians requested that this last part of the dialogue be deferred, and it has not yet been resumed. This deferral may reflect the knotty nature of the subject, but it also reflects, as I have been informed, the strong currents of "Assyrian nationalism" within the Assyrian laity, as contrasted with political quietism of the Chaldeans. It may also reflect the fact that when an Assyrian bishop and a good part of his flock entered into union with Rome (via the Chaldeans) in 2004, the Assyrians reduced that bishop (and the clergy that went with him) to "lay status," and requested that Rome receive them as laymen -- but Rome, after much hesitation, received the bishop as a bishop and his clergy as priests.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sr. Vassa: There's no ontological impediment to priestesses

Image
Is the male-only priesthood a discipline or essential to the nature of being a priest? Sr. Vassa (again unflinchingly taking up a contentious topic by climbing up the ladder to the highest platform and then jumping into the deep end head first) dives right in and says there is no reason beyond personal preference to not have female clergy. You know, when people ask me about women in priesthood, they say, 'Sister, why can't women be priests?' And I say, 'Women CAN be priests. We don't WANT them to be priests.' Because you see, God can do anything, and the Church, by divine authority, uh, can do anything, but, the Church doesn't want to - and that's a legitimate reason. What I don't like is when we TRY to pretend that there are other reasons for this, because it's legitimate not to want something, and there are reasons not to want this - right? - but, we shouldn't pretent that there's some... reason, that, for example, the maleness...
Read more

OCA takes strong stand for canonical Orthodoxy

( Orthochristian.com ) - The primate of the Orthodox Church in America, His Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon of Washington and All America and Canada, will concelebrate with the primate of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine, in western Ukraine later this week. The Ukrainian Orthodox Diocese of Chernivtsi and Bukovina “awaits the visit of the primate of the Orthodox Church in America on June 1–2, 2024. Solemn services will be held in the Cathedral of the Descent of the Holy Spirit in Chernivtsi, with the participation of both primates.” The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America formally rejects communion with the schismatics of the “Orthodox Church in Ukraine,” recognizing only the canonical UOC under Met. Onuphry. The Ukrainian primate was the honored guest at the OCA’s 18th All-American Council in July 2015.
Read more

A Response to “On administering Holy Communion in a Time of a Plague”

This was sent to me and deserves a read. You can read the Calivas article here . We can all agree that we are living in unusual times. However, the nature and extent of the illness that we face, and the proper response of the Church, is a matter of much disagreement. We have seen various responses to the COVID-19 epidemic: calls to close our Churches as infectious vectors, and demands to open them as places of spiritual healing. Directives a) ordering the cessation of sacramental life as part of an effort to “flatten the curve,” and cries for access to the divine grace that flows forth from those very mysteries; b) calling for the restriction of “at-risk persons,” and serious questions about the validity of such controls, c) instructions to liturgists to wear personal protective equipment during the celebration of the divine services and the distribution of the holy Mysteries, and uncertainty about the fitness of such practices. Who has been championing what and on behalf of whom? The ...
Read more