Thursday, June 25, 2015

Catholic Patriarch of Babylon Offers Resignation -- Reunion of the "Church of the East" Under Rome

(Baghdad) Patriarch Raphael Louis I. Sako of Babylon, the head of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Union with Rome has freely  offered his resignation to clear the way for the reunification of the three faiths, which are part of the  East Syriac tradition of the ancient Church of the East.
The ecclesiastical hierarchies of all three churches should be set to zero to allow the unions and the provision of a new common patriarch. The old Church of the East dates back to the early Christian evangelization east of the Tigris. The Church of the East brought the first news of Jesus Christ to Persia, India and as far as China.
 Jean-Simon Sulaka was appointed in 1553 as the first Chaldean Patriarch united with Rome. Since the Western powers intervened militarily in Mesopotamia, today's Iraq, the Church has suffered a seemingly unstoppable  bloodletting. The stronger the military intervention of the West, the more untenable was the position of the Christians in their homeland. They were persecuted, decimated, scattered and whoever was able  emigrated.

Assyrian Church of the East Primarily a Diaspora Church

The same fate was experienced by the other two confessions. The Assyrian Church of the East now lives almost only in their thriving communities in the US, Western Europe and Oceania. Because of the persecution of the Assyrians by Muslim Kurds and Arabs, and the massacre of Simele in which several thousand Assyrians were killed, the Assyrian Catholicos of the Patriarchate of the mountains has lived since 1940 in exile in the United States. This Oriental Orthodox Church is currently in a transitional phase, as Catholicos Dinkha IV. Khanania died last March and the decision on the succession has been postponed until September. The Church is considering the relocation of the Patriarchate from Chicago to Iraq specifically to Erbil in Kurdistan.

1964 Elimination of the Assyrian Christians in Iraq

Catholicos Addai II.
Because of the exile situation of Patriarch   the Assyrian Church of the East split in 1964, the Iraqi part which has since then been called Ancient Assyrian Church of the East. Because of flight and emigration it also   now has diaspora communities in the West and other countries of the Middle East. The Catholicos of the Assyrian Christians in Iraq since 1970 is  Patriarch Addai II. with headquarters in Baghdad.
The proposal of Patriarch Raphael Louis I. Sako looks to a union of a canonically independent Church, but united with Rome. His proposal establishes the Patriarch especially with the common threat of Christians in Iraq. There were doubts whether the migrated Christians will return to Iraq again because the situation is unclear. Above all, one does not know how it with the Islamic state would continue (IS), which is a declared mortal enemy of the Christians in the Middle East.

Common "Church of the East" in Full Communion with Rome

The name of the new church would simply read "Church of the East".  With regard to the recognition of the Pope in Rome, it refers to the 1994 signed agreement of Louis Raphael I. Sako  by Pope John Paul II. and Catholicos Dinkha IV. common Christological declaration that the Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Church confess the same faith in Jesus Christ. It was also noted that the ancient Christological controversies were largely due to misunderstandings.
Since 2013   talks were being  held at the initiative of Patriarch Raphael Louis I. Sako which were welcomed by the late Catholicos Dinkha IV.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Wikicommons / Mission chaldeene
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

42 comments:

Basil said...

Bravo. Another triumph for Jesus Christ and his Kingdom

Our Lady of Good Success-pray for us. said...

What does this mean, practically? I guess all parties might agree that proselytism is solemn nonsense and that silly things like doctrines and dogmas just get in the way. JPII, after all, 'authorized' the Nestorian rite in 2001. The Nestorian rite of the 'Church of the East' has no words of consecration; the "Body and Blood of Christ are nowhere signified" in the rite.

Basil said...

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari to which you refer is perhaps the oldest extant Eucharistic Prayer and was used at least from the mid third century AD and pre-dates Nestorius.

Anonymous said...

This means being one step closer to Christian unity. Also, the Church of the East does not like to be called Nestorian because they never followed his teachings. Additionally, the Chaldean Anaphora of Addai and Mari have been adjusted to include the Words of Institution, and the Common Christological Agreement showed that the original Anaphora does indeed include the Words of Institution, just not in the order that Romans and others expect them to be. We recognize it as a legitimate anaphora because they are an ancient church who still retain orthodox beliefs of Eucharist and Holy Orders. If we unite, then we are that much closer with uniting with the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church, and it is thanks to the martyrs of today that this is indeed happening. Let us pray that we and they become one, just as Christ intended for us.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who worries that this prophecy is coming true?

May 13, 1820: "I saw the relationship between the two Popes. I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city (of Rome). The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness. Then, the vision seemed to extend on every side. Whole Catholic communities were being oppressed, harassed, confined, and deprived of their freedom. I saw many churches close down, great miseries everywhere, wars and bloodshed. A wild and ignorant mob took to violent action. But it did not last long."

"Once more I saw the Church of Peter was undermined by a plan evolved by the secret sect, while storms were damaging it. But I saw also that help was coming when distress had reached its peak. I saw again the Blessed Virgin ascend on the Church and spread Her mantle [over it]. I saw a Pope who was at once gentle, and very firm . . . I saw a great renewal, and the Church rose high in the sky."

August 10, 1820: "I see the Holy Father in great anguish. He lives in a palace other than before and he admits only a limited number of friends near him. I fear that the Holy Father will suffer many more trials before he dies. I see that the false Church of Darkness is making progress, and I see the dreadful influence that it has on people. The Holy Father and the Church are verily in so great a distress that one must implore God day and night."
"Last night I was taken to Rome where the Holy Father, immersed in his sorrows, is still hiding to elude dangerous demands (made upon him). He is very weak, and exhausted by sorrows, cares, and prayers. He can now trust but few people. This is mainly why he is hiding. But he still has with him an aged priest who has much simplicity and godliness. He is his friend, and because of his simplicity they did not think it would be worth removing him. But this man receives many graces from God. He sees and notices a great many things which he faithfully reports to the Holy Father. It was required of me to inform him, while he was praying, of the traitors, and evil-doers who were to be found among the high-ranking servants living close to him, so that he might be made aware of it."

Ulrich said...

This Pope was obviously a sissy.

Our Lady of Good Success-pray for us. said...

Basil, parts are old, but they are not older than 'This is my body, this is my blood', which is excluded!

Bergoglio is working, as we speak, to change the Roman Church's easter date to match with the 'Church of East', which will kill the use of the '62 missal.

Basil said...

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is recognised as one of the most ancient, if not the oldest surviving Eucharistic Prayer. The Western Church acknowledges the Eastern theology of the power of the Epiklesis in the Anamnesis. The 'ex opero operato' fixation on precise formulae is very Western, very neurotic, very late and very bad theology.
The Holy Spirit doesn't require express words when they are present in the intention and statement of motive contained in the whole Anaphora.

As for the perils of the 1962, Paul VI banished it once before so it has had a trial run already.

Unknown said...

Did he actually offer his resignation, or only offer a proposal for unity in which he and Patriarch Addy II would both resign? I read it as the later, but it is only through translation...

Cyril said...

It's much clearer in the original Syro-Chaldean text.

Our Lady of Good Success-pray for us. said...

"We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body. This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has been always used by the Catholic Church. The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known and accessible to all, must here be omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Saviour: Do this for a commemoration of me. For what the Lord enjoined was not only what He had done, but also what he had said; and especially is this true, since the words were uttered not only to signify, but also to accomplish. That these words constitute the form is easily proved from reason also. The form is that which signifies what is accomplished in this Sacrament; but as the preceding words signify and declare what takes place in the Eucharist, that is, the conversion of the bread into the true body of our Lord, it therefore follows that these very words constitute the form. In this sense may be understood the words of the Evangelist: He blessed; for they seem equivalent to this: Taking bread, he blessed it, saying: "This is my body”." Catechism of the Council of Trent.

This is a dogmatic statment, therefore a Catholic must believe it.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/12/dialogue-on-validity-form-and-intention.html

Rad Trad seems to be spot on in his well-sourced remarks.

Also, the approval recognises tradition and we are putative trads, right?

Anonymous said...

Fuck the "radtrads"

The Latins have gotten their way with god damn everything. The Liturgy of Addai and Mari is one of the oldest liturgies in the world, no one needs their permission for the words of institution

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
susan said...

aaaand the two vulgarian anonymouses show us the kind of mouth one should have to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord....nice.

Alex A. Biral said...

What is the point of uniting the churches if you don't care for the roman approval. The only union that there can be is that of dogma. If you don't accept the same dogma as us, why care for saying we are one church at all?

Netmilsmom said...

Please remember that these are Autonomous churches within the Roman Catholic Church. While under the Pope for dogma, their traditions hold firm.
God Bless them. This will make them strong.

Anonymous said...

I wish to address a few prominent errors concerning the transubstantiation of the species of bread and wine with quotations from the article "The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament" from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

First, it is an error to say that the epiclesis possesses consecratory efficacy while the words of institution do not. "The objection that the mere historical recitation of the words of Institution taken from the narrative of the Last Supper possesses no intrinsic consecratory force, would be well founded, did the priest of the Latin Church merely intend by means of them to narrate some historical event rather than pronounce them with the practical purpose of effecting the conversion, or if he pronounced them in his own name and person instead of the Person of Christ, whose minister and instrumental cause he is."

Second, it is an error to say that the words of consecration together with the epiclesis effect transubstantiation. This view may be gleaned from the writings of the fourteenth-century Saint Nicholas Cabasilas. His celebrated Commentary on the Divine Liturgy attempted to answer Latin objections to this position in vogue by the Greeks at the time. He discusses how Latins were referencing a passage of Saint John Chrysostom stating, "The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered." While not denying an intrinsic efficacy to the words of institution, Cabasilas responded by comparing said efficacy to the divine blessing invoked upon humanity in Genesis to "increase and multiply and fill the earth." This injunction, contends Cabasilas, is indeed efficacious; however, it is properly actualized in the institution of matrimony. So too, he argues, is the consecration of bread and wine by the words of institution realized in the epiclesis. This position, though it "allows to the words of Institution their essential, though partial, consecratory value, appears nevertheless to be intrinsically repugnant," since "the act of Consecration cannot remain, as it were, in a state of suspense, but is completed in an instant of time..." This position, in fact, if I am not mistaken, was definitively condemned by Pope Saint Pius X.

Third, it is an error to say that the anaphora in its entirety is the form of transubstantiation. Some schismatics articulate this notion in reaction to the preciseness of Catholic sacramental theology. Were we to affirm that transubstantiation is dependent upon every prayer from the beginning of the proskomedia to the completion of the epiclesis, we would have to acknowledge consecration as a process wherein Our Lord's presence grows and is incomplete up to the epiclesis. Such a position is akin to the heresy of impanation. We may liken the anaphora to creation insofar as creation is the context in which the Logos is uttered, for it is clear the words of consecration may not occur outside the anaphora, but we must avoid connecting the anaphora to the act of creation itself. It is not enough for us to say, "It is a mystery." Liturgy entails anamnesis (re-presentation or actualization), not amnesia. Musterion, after all, according to the ancient Greeks did not primarily refer to that which is unknowable; rather, it indicated the unraveling or unfolding of knowledge as told by the oracles. For us Catholics, this knowledge is a product of divine revelation.

Anonymous said...

Having addressed these three errors, we still must confront the apparent contradiction posed by the epiclesis following the words of institution, which, as we have shown, possess complete consecratory efficacy. Since the sacrifice of Calvary and the sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy are one and the same sacrifice, we must note the eternal character of the redemption of man. The sacred liturgy reflects this revealed truth. The Western offertory, which implores God to receive "this spotless victim" and "the chalice of salvation," is anticipatory of the consecration that has not yet occurred. Similarly, the Eastern epiclesis, asking God to "make this Bread the precious Body of Your Christ" and "that which is in this chalice the precious Blood of Your Christ," is retrospective of the consecration.
Here is the entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Since this prayer always follows after the words of Institution have been pronounced, the theological question arises, as to how it may be made to harmonize with the words of Christ, which alone possess the consecrated power. Two explanations have been suggested which, however, can be merged in one. The first view considers the Epiklesis to be a mere declaration of the fact, that the conversion has already taken place, and that in the conversion just as essential a part is to be attributed to the Holy Spirit as Co-Consecrator as in the allied mystery of the Incarnation. Since, however, because of the brevity of the actual instant of conversion, the part taken by the Holy Spirit could not be expressed, the Epiklesis takes us back in imagination to the precious moment and regards the Consecration as just about to occur. A similar purely psychological retrospective transfer is met with in other portions of the Liturgy, as in the Mass for the Dead, wherein the Church prays for the departed as if they were still upon their bed of agony and could still be rescued from the gates of hell. Thus considered, the Epiklesis refers us back to the Consecration as the center about which all the significance contained in its words revolves. A second explanation is based, not upon the enacted Consecration, but upon the approaching Communion, inasmuch as the latter, being the effective means of uniting us more closely in the organized body of the Church, brings forth in our hearts the mystical Christ, as is read in the Roman Canon of the Mass: "Ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat", i.e. that it may be made for us the body and blood. It was in this purely mystical manner that the Greeks themselves explained the meaning of the Epiklesis at the Council of Florence (Mansi, Collect. Concil., XXXI, 106). Yet since much more is contained in the plain words than this true and deep mysticism, it is desirable to combine both explanations into one, and so we regard the Epiklesis, both in point of liturgy and of time, as the significant connecting link, placed midway between the Consecration and the Communion in order to emphasize the part taken by the Holy Spirit in the Consecration of bread and wine, and, on the other hand, with the help of the same Holy Spirit to obtain the realization of the true Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ by their fruitful effects on both priest and people."

Cyril said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ajax said...

Scrub your own mouth out first.

susan said...

never threw the f bomb around, jerk.

Ajax said...

Sirach 22: 15.

Anonymous said...

One thing I notice nearly every time a debate online between eastern schismatics/heretics and Roman Catholics is that the schismatic/heretics almost immediately go into cussing and the f word like some demon out of hell.
Are these the fruits of your schismatic church?

Anonymous said...

Do you even consider yourself a christian? Do you realize the absurdity of your text here?Which christian truly following the first commandment speaks like this?

Anonymous said...

Pray for him Susan, that's all you can do and let it be in God's hands. In today's gospel reading our Lord clearly states that this person cursing his brother is right off to the lake of fire. What will he do next? Blaspheme our Lord for telling him?

"GOSPEL Matt. 5:20-24
At that time, Jesus said to His disciples: "Unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. You have heard that it was said to them of old: 'Thou shalt not kill.' And whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fir..."

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tancred said...

He resigned.

The Rad Trad said...

The Malabar fellow has some anger, but then again plenty of saints had bouts of swearing. Leave the Eastern churches alone.

Ecclesial Vigilante said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

No, nobody ever got to heaven calling someone a "f'ing idiot". Look at today's Gospel reading below, they only thing someone gets who says that is a free ride to the lake of fire.

I will agree that Rome, the current regime in Rome should not mess with any church, the less this corrupt bunch messes with the better.. Many private prophecies speak of a future holy pontiff and a grand council, a real council which will resolve everything and the world will worship God in a single Catholic way.

Ecclesial Vigilante said...

Dear Administrator,

If you found my comment offensive, please message me as to what you did not approve. It is not my intention to disrespect your blog and I wish to post within whatever rules you have in place. My comment was not intended to troll, flame, or incite wrath.

Respectfully,
LOB

Tancred said...

Bollocks.

Ecclesial Vigilante said...

Apologies. Are you English? You see, I'm American and to us it is nothing more than a funny sounding word. Not any ore offensive than "crap", really.

I had the same reprimand on Fr. Hunwicke's blog and can't post there under this avatar anymore.

Cheers! :)

Tancred said...

I've had a hard time believing what you've written in the past was well-intended or worthwhile, so after a while, I just scrape all the comments from certain into the same ash can.

Ecclesial Vigilante said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ecclesial Vigilante said...

The fellow went a bit overboard, but there were some saints that used swearing to great effect. Take Thomas More's letter to Luther (keep in mind, this is quite mild compared to things the German heretic wrote):
"Come, do not rage so violently, good father; but if you have raved wildly enough, listen now, you pimp. You recall that you falsely complained above that the king has shown no passage in your whole book, even as an example, in which he said that you contradict yourself. You told this lie shortly before, although the king has demonstrated to you many examples of your inconsistency ….
But meanwhile, for as long as your reverend paternity will be determined to tell these shameless lies, others will be permitted, on behalf of his English majesty, to throw back into your paternity’s shitty mouth, truly the shit-pool of all shit, all the muck and shit which your damnable rottenness has vomited up, and to empty out all the sewers and privies onto your crown divested of the dignity of the priestly crown, against which no less than against the kingly crown you have determined to play the buffoon.
In your sense of fairness, honest reader, you will forgive me that the utterly filthy words of this scoundrel have forced me to answer such things, for which I should have begged your leave. Now I consider truer than truth that saying: ‘He who touches pitch will be wholly defiled by it’ (Sirach 13:1). For I am ashamed even of this necessity, that while I clean out the fellow’s shit-filled mouth I see my own fingers covered with shit."

Ecclesial Vigilante said...

Fair enough. The name was a joke from a while back anyway. It honestly stopped being funny.

Our Lady of Good Success-pray for us. said...

@Susan. Yeah. And Bergoglio reckoned 'radtrads' are attached to the 'fashion' of an 'old' liturgy. While I don't encourage potty-mouth responses within a debate about Holy Truths, it makes the fact of people's geographical committment to a geographical concept of faith and worship very evident.

Our Lady of Good Success-pray for us. said...

Our Lord to St Peter: "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

Holy Apostles, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, pray for us.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, okay, our Lord was probably just exaggerating then when he told us calling someone fool you were in danger of hell.

Tancred said...

Unfortunately, because of leftists and other ill-willed individuals there are misunderstandings and friendly fire. For that I'm truly sorry. especially if I've missed the import of what you're saying.