Discussion any converts from acoe to chaldean church
i lowkey feel like i’m the only one
tyari btw
•
•
•
u/BirdManFlyHigh 8d ago
Why did you feel the need to leave the ACOE?
•
u/olapooza 8d ago
Why does it matter? They’re moving from one Assyrian church to another. It’s their personal religious beliefs.
•
u/BirdManFlyHigh 8d ago
It matters due to the reasons he left. By leaving the ACOE church he is essentially saying it is a false church, which it isn't.
•
u/olapooza 8d ago
Why does it matter to us if an individual believes it’s false? That’s their own personal view on their faith.
There are many of us who believe in the creed of the Assyrian Church of the East.
•
u/BirdManFlyHigh 8d ago
So the answer is to not care at all? To not defend the church at all against false claims?
I want to know the reasons people leave our church so I can prepare and defend against it. Especially when, in this case, it is over false ideas. You never know, perhaps other people who are reading this thread are dealing with similar things.
It may not matter to you, but it does to me.
•
u/xdltdx 8d ago
communion with other churches outside of our own, papal primacy is necessary, the absurdity of nestorius’ letters to st cyril, the absurdity of babais 2 qnume 2 kyane christology that contradicted an earlier synod where the acoe bishops essentially affirmed the council of chalcedon. to my the chaldean church is the same thing as the acoe but without the odd beliefs
•
u/BirdManFlyHigh 8d ago
To be honest, it sounds like you don’t know much about the ACOE or Catholicism if those are your concerns.
The ACOE is not Nestorian, never has taught two Persons in Christ and recently met with Dr. Sebastian Brock, which debunked all of those claims.
But it’s easy to argue in bad faith. For example the first person called Nestorian was actually Pope Leo, not the COE.
What about filioque? What about the time when there were three popes at once? What about Vatican II which utterly reformed their entire Divine Liturgy? We can go on and on.
But I trust their theologians have answers to all these, and to think the ACOE doesn’t is ignorance.
•
u/xdltdx 8d ago
the acoe is not nestorian but they still venerate the man which is very odd. you can quote the baazar but his writings to cyril make it very obvious that he believes in 2 christs. the filioque is unfortunately used by the chaldean church but rome doesn’t prevent us from not using it, rome even recommends that we stop using the words of institution to be closer to the east syriac tradition. vatican II reforming the latin liturgy has nothing to do with us because it’s not our liturgy
•
u/BirdManFlyHigh 8d ago edited 8d ago
Respectfully, it doesn’t matter what your opinion on the letter is. I’ll trust Dr. Sebastian Brock and other scholars, let alone theologians all throughout the ages from the ACOE.
Even the Coptic priest, Fr Lazarus recently stated that Nestorius never taught two persons.
Yeah, you still have filioque and other issues, so you left one set of problems for another. Like I said, you left one tradition you didn’t know for another
Pretty sure the Chaldean church hasn’t condemned Nestorius either and still has his anaphora.
•
u/xdltdx 8d ago
> I separate the natures but I unite the worship. That which was formed in the womb is not in itself God; that which was created by the Spirit is not in itself God; that which was buried in the tomb is not in itself God; for if it were, we would unmistakably be worshippers of man and worshippers of the dead
Quaternion 16 on the doctrine, cited at the counsil of Ephesus
lest anyone should suspect Christianity of worshipping a man.
Quaternion 15 on doctrine, cited at counsil of Ephesus
“If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be Anathema
Nestorius response to St Cyrils first Anathema
how does brock view all of this, if i may ask? because this is from his writings and appears pretty damning
•
u/BirdManFlyHigh 8d ago
All you’re doing is proving your bad faith to arguments. Using the council of Ephesus is not Nestorius. Also, I already mentioned your church has Nestorius’s anaphora.
But let me ask you a simple question: Did Mary give birth to God the Father and the Holy Spirit?
To claim you are smarter than Dr. Brock is also hilarious, especially considering he is not even ACOE but Syriac Orthodox… which is with the Coptic church… which also hate us. That Dr Brock, which the video is up there if you’re actually curious in learning says the ACOE is not Nestorian.
•
u/xdltdx 8d ago
akhona i haven’t been saying at all that the ACOE is nestorian you’re putting words in my mouth. i am also not saying i’m smarter than dr brock i just don’t know how scholarship can read nestorius’ own words in a different light. the acts of council of ephesus quote nestorius and even besides them look at his response to cyril’s anathema. it explicitly denies that "God the Word... changed himself into flesh” and treats the assumed nature as something the Word "dwelt in," and anathematizes anyone who says otherwise. if that’s not unorthodox then i really don’t know what orthodoxy even is. it also has nothing to do with Maryam giving birth to the Father and Holy Spirit and arguing the council fathers at ephesus believed that is definitely bad faith. if you have a rebuttal from brock on nestorius’ own words please share because i genuinely don’t know how it would be possible to refute
•
u/BirdManFlyHigh 8d ago
First of all, we don’t actually have Nestorius’s writings that were supposedly cited at Ephesus. There is no evidence to back up what he actually thought. He addresses that in his talk. I would encourage you to watch it.
Second, the COE only had the work of Nestorius’s bazaar translated into Syriac and that was a hundred years after the controversy. And if you read the Bazaar it is very much in line with Chalcedon.
Third, if you read our church council of 486, it is very clear we do not teach two persons. Again, remember the first person actually called Nestorian was not the COE but Pope Leo.
Read this quote from St Narsai, who is writing around the time of the controversy.
the zeal of foolish men
… has compelled me to distinguish the natures:
although I have distinguished the natures,
the glorious things from the lowly,
yet in my confession I have not made any split,
for it is in the one Son that I confess;
a single Lordship do I believe,
a single authority do I recognise…•
u/xdltdx 8d ago
ultimately even if we don’t have his writings cited as ephesus we still have his responses to the anathemas by cyril which definitely point to heresy. the baazar is a different thing but it’s also plausible he was acting opportunistic at that point. if he held the view present in his responses to cyril and then changed his views by the time of the baazar you could expect him to formally recant and rejoin the church but he never did which to me is very telling it was not genuine
→ More replies (0)
•
u/AssyrianFuego West Hakkarian 8d ago
Go to San Jose, you’ll find a few Mar Bawai-ists at the Chaldean Parish, many Baznaye.
•
u/olapooza 8d ago
Aren’t they Marbushnaye?
•
u/AssyrianFuego West Hakkarian 8d ago
In SJ? The ones I’ve met are Baznay.
•
u/olapooza 8d ago
Interesting I had thought it was a tribal move when Mar Bawai split
•
u/AssyrianFuego West Hakkarian 7d ago
No, mostly political.
Though some family members of Mar Bawai became CCC, which can give it that sense.
•
u/olapooza 9d ago
Thousands in 1553 and then again in 1830