What is the contemporary relationship of the Syriac Fathers, Oriental Orthodoxy and the Greek East

well, I am one who does not think he ended his life in the Church of the East because he teaches the mutual exchange of properties which is heretical to someone who is Nestorian and he is in EO and OO calendars.

Hi. Just one important point of clarification: The Church of the East is not a part of the Oriental Orthodox communion. The Syriac churches in the Oriental Orthodox communion are the Syriac Orthodox Church of the Middle East and India, and the Malankara Orthodox Church (also based in India). The Church of the East (a.k.a. East Syrian, Persian, or Nestorian -- you'll find them by these different names according to who is writing about them and when) is its own separate group, albeit related via language and culture as all Syriac Christians are to one another. This does not say anything about their theology, however. St. Isaac is accepted by both OO and EO because obviously we find him to be Orthodox. The Nestorian confession itself is another matter entirely, and so we condemn it.

"In the days of Babai the Catholicos, this Mari emerged (as) the teacher of the heresies of the followers of Paul of Samosata and Diodorus [of Tarsus] in Beth Aramaye. And Babai the Catholicos, the son of Hormizd who was the secretary of Zabercan the Marzban of Beth Aramaye, received the doctrine from him. Anyone who does not confess that Mary is Theotokos, let him be anathema!"

-- Letter of 6th century (d. before 548) Syriac Orthodox bishop Simeon of Beth Arsham (near Seleucia, the patriarchate of the Nestorians) concerning the Nestorians, Vatican Syriac Manuscripts, fol. 27a [emphasis added, since this is most emphatically not something a Nestorian or someone with Nestorian sympathies would ever write]

dzheremi said:

This does not say anything about their theology, however. St. Isaac is accepted by both OO and EO because obviously we find him to be Orthodox. The Nestorian confession itself is another matter entirely, and so we condemn it.

Click to expand...

this is why I can't get on board with St Isaac being Nestorian. if he truly was one, not only does it not make sense for him to be on our calendar, but especially yours. plus, he teaches stuff both EO and OO affirm and the Nestorians would say is heresy.

Walsinghsm Way said:

Thank you both for your responses. I was basing my question(s) on the introductory material by Dr. Sebastian Brock to his anthology The Syriac Fathers in Prayer and the Spiritual Life, the Ascetic Discourses published by SVS Press, and the book The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Isaac the Syrian (of the last title is incorrect I apologize, I don't have it in front of me) which claims him for The Church of the East, as well as originating from Qatar.

Click to expand...

well, he was ordained by a Nestorian bishop, so he was in that confession for at least a part of his life. but he left the episcopacy and I don't think he ended his life outside the Church (which is why EO and OO claim him). and while he does use a lot of Nestorian terminology, he also has teachings that Nestorians would very heretical

maybe. St Isaac was certainly influenced by them, as he also had a history in the Nestorians.

Walsinghsm Way said:

One of the confusing items for me is the status of St Isaac of Nineveh in canonical Eastern Orthodoxy (similar to the status of Evagrios Pontikos -whose spiritual writings seem to form the backbone of all subsequent Eastern Mystical and Ascetic Theology despite the condemnations of his more speculative dogmatic corpus), whom I believe was from the Church of the East -a non-Chalcedonian/Oriental Orthodox (but am open to correction). If he is considered as belonging to a heretical/schismatic Church, why are his writings taken to heart as much as they are? And what is the proper position to take on him? Is it appropriate, for instance to venerate his Icon, or recite the Prayers under his name and pen?

I have seen at least one article that tries to say that Isaac of Nineveh who wrote the Ascetic Homilies was a different Isaac than the (monophysite?) Bishop.

Click to expand...

Before going further, glad to see you found your way here after I pointed it out on FB chat, Bro Good folks here...

If interested, There have been several discussions over the years on the issue, one of them being more recent in Copts are Orthodox Too ( Mar 8, 2017 )

That said, as said there, one of the things we cannot avoid is the issue of consistency when it comes to the Saints and the ways that there are layers we've added onto their ideology that they did not adhere to - and with St.Isaac, many in the EO world try to have their cake/eat it too, but they cannot avoid the fact that St.Isaac was already a paradox.

In example, This is what the 5th Council says:



St.Isaac was very influenced by others such as Theodore and he noted that consistently in his writings. He was also ordained by a Nestorian Bishop and noted repeatedly that any who do not adhere to Theodore are to be under anathema. For reference, with what St. Isaac said on Theodore of Mopsuestia (as well as in other places):

In regards to how St.Isaac already said Theodore being rejected is to reject the Church:



Advocating for Theodore was part of what the Church said anathema was about - and thus, St Isaac is both a saint and under anathema...and subscription to the fifth ecumenical council's canon of anathematisation of those who follow Theodore is difficult to avoid. And of course, we have to remember context since the commendation of Theodore of Mopsuestia is not the same as 'Nestorianism' advocated (as Theodore did not call for that) - we can see where the 3rd council condemns Nestorianism, but it did not condemn Theodore and it was the 5th council which anathematised those who commended him because of his connection to Nestorius as the man's mentor/spiritual father.

While it is not seen clearly where St.Isaac taught Nestorianism, it has been shown that he commends Theodore of Mopsuestia AND NOTES his theology to be a reflection of him - meaning that 5th Council is very relevant in the issue of his status as someone who is both a Saint and under anathema technically. This is necessary to understand since debates can go back and forth all day on "Was St.Isaac Nestorian?" - but the simpler question of "Did he commend Theodore?" IS more direct. This is in addition to seeing the clear fact that St. Isaac already belonged to a communion outside the communion of the Orthodox Church in its technical and visible sense (and was an ordained cleric within it).

Hope that helps. I love Sebastian Brock's The Syriac Fathers in Prayer and the Spiritual Life, the Ascetic Discourses and it is truly among the most documented reads ever.

apparently, and I will have to check this out when I get back home, but in the new edition of his Ascetical homilies, one of the points the editor's bring up is that Theodore's writings were only fragmentary in Persia at the time of St Isaac, which means he might not have been aware of ALL of the heresy surrounding the man, which explains why he was so favorable to him. and there was no open condemnation from that area about Ephesus or Chalcedon, only they used more Antiochian language since they dealt with the extreme Monophysites (which both EO and OO condemn as well), which would explain St Isaac's more Nestorian sounding word choice.

I'll have to dig a little more, but that is an interesting point if true, and further explains why he is on OO and EO calendars

it might be, I am wondering if it is the one in the STOTS Bookstore. that was where I read St Isaac teaching on the mutual exchange of properties, something the EO and OO both rightly insist on, and something a Nestorian would call heretical

Part of the title of the EO Patriarch of Antioch includes the phrase "of All the East", and I believe that our Syriac cousins in the OO side include that phrase in their patriarch's title as well.
The body that we in the English-speaking world refer to as the Assyrian Church of the East is made up of ethnic Assyrians whose Church split off after Nestorianism was refuted and found heretical. They are a separate entity outside of both the EO and OO Churches. These usages of "of the East" may have lead to some confusion about which Church St Isaac of Nineveh falls under when we just vaguely refer to his Church as just being "of the East" or"the Eastern Church".

The Assyrian Church of the East in modern times, I've heard, has started that their theology is not Nestorian in nature, but they maintain that Nestorius himself didn't exactly get a "fair trail" as it were. Either way, at the end of the day, St Isaac of Nineveh was not one of theirs at the end of his life.

Keep in mind the historical time period that St. Isaac lived. Generally speaking, in the 7th century onward the Assyrians were making pilgrimages to Jerusalem. They were visiting Orthodox shrines. There is a book which recounts a letter from a bishop speaking about a collection made by Assyrians who made a pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre.

Just prior to the birth of St. Isaac, there was the Roman-Sassanid wars (602-628 AD) where the Byzantine forces under Emperor Heraclius defeated the Persians at the Battle of Nineveh in 627 AD. The city remained under the Roman Byzantine empire for a decade or two before the Islamic -Arab conquests of the entire area. Thus the region that St. Isaac lived was united with the Byzantine's having captured it from the Persians, but even after that Palestine and much of Mesopotamia and Middle East remained united under a new regime; the caliphate. So plenty of contact between the Orthodox and Assyria christians during that century. The writings of St. Isaac spread within Orthodoxy from the Mar Saba Monastery in Jerusalem. A place where christian pilgrimages under a unified region is quite plausible.
Some do believe the originally produced writings (pt 1) are not the same author as the other parts (as Sebastian Brock claims). It's claimed those writings are of a St. Isaac that lived a few decades earlier. But again during the flare up between the Persians and Byzantine Roman armies which ravished both empires from 500Ad to 628Ad