Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church

[bbbbbbb]

In all fairness to everyone, there is no hard evidence the Maronites were monothelites; they did break away from the Syriac Orthodox Church and claim to have been persecuted by the former, thus leading to their alleged “flight” into the mountains of Lebanon; I am not sure this happened precisely as the Maronite histories allege, given the enormous strategic advantages conveyed by the Lebanese mountains, which have historically protected the Maronite population from the persecutions suffered by the Syriac Orthodox. Concerning the Chaldeans and Syro Malabar Catholics, the former consisted of an East Syriac tribe which broke away from the Church of the East owing to a dispute concerning the succession of the Catholicos, which at that time was a hereditary office.

The latter consists of the portion of St. Thomas Christians who did not object to the imposition of certain Latinizations under Portuguese rule, basically, those who did not swear the Coonan Cross Oath. The Church in India used the East Syriac Rite before the Portuguese conquest; after sending a request to Syriac speaking Christians in Mesopotamia and Syria for assistance, the Syriac Orthodox church responded by sending Mar Ahatullah, who was murdered, followed by another bishop who introduced the West Syriac liturgical rite. One prominent member of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church who is a friend of mine is of the opinion that before the Portuguese, there were two hierarchies in India, one loyal to the Catholicos of the East and the other to the Maphrian of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. Many scholars on the other hand take the view, primarily based on the historic use of the East Syriac Rite, that the Indian church was exclusively a domain of the Church of the East before the Portuguese conquest of Malabar.

The Church of the East is not Nestorian, by the way (they venerate Nestorius, but their Christology is based on a model by Mar Babai the Great which is identical to the Chalcedonian model), but the Roman Catholics initially thought it was, and based on this error, imposed sweeping liturgical changes on the Chaldean and Syro Malabar churches, similiar to those imposed on the Syriac Catholic Church (a breakaway group from the Syriac Orthodox who entered into communion with the Roman church in the 19th century).

Conversely, the Coptic Catholics have experienced no substantial changes to their liturgy other than the suppression of the “theopaschite clause” from the Trisagion, a change which if memory serves has since been reversed.

It should also be noted that historically, Assyrians and Syriac Orthodox have gotten along extremely well, despite the former adhering to a semi-Chalcedonian Christology and the latter a strict Cyriline Christology. In fact, one of the best friends of the greatest Maphrian and one of the great scholars of the Syriac Orthodox Church, Mar Gregorios bar Hebraeus, was the Assyrian Catholicos of the East; when Mar Gregorios reposed while returning to his monastery (that of St. Matthew, I believe, which has miraculously survived ISIS in Iraq) from his cathedral in Tikrit, he reposed in an Assyrian town, and the Catholicos hosted, and several thousand Assyrians attended, his funeral. So historically, the relationship between the two churches has been amazingly good, and better than the relationship either church historically had with either Rome or the Chalcedonian Orthodox. Indeed, at the same time Mar Gregorios bar Hebraeus was buried by his friend the Catholicos, the Syriac and Coptic Orthodox churches had interrupted communion with the Armenian Apostolic church (perhaps because it was at this time Rome came very close to taking over the Armenian church, and certain Latinizations in the Armenian liturgy, such as the reading of John 1:1-14 at the end of the Soorp Badarak, date from this era).

I would go so far as to say that historically, the Syriac Orthodox church has had a relationship with the Church of the East second only to its deep and intimate relationship with the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox community (the Syriac and Coptic church have always been in communion, and there are the “Seven Syrian Saints” in the history of the Ethiopian church credited with, among other things, handing down the Antiochene-type liturgy used by the Ethiopians.

Thank you for this excellent history. I appreciate it very much.

 

[The Liturgist]

Theological liberalism with its nineteenth-century roots in Germany continues to wreak devastation in far too many branches of Christianity and it is, in my opinion, the primary roadblock at this point in time to genuine ecumenical relations.

More likely than not the Anglican Communion and the Eastern Orthodox would have entered into communion had it not been for the domination of the former by liberal theology in the late 20th century.

I myself believe that theological liberalism is not exclusively of Germanic origin, but rather represents to a great extent the left over baggage from the 18th century “Enlightenment” which was responsible for, among other horrors, the apostasy of a large number of Congregational churches in New England, including the oldest church in New England, the Old Ship Church in Rhode Island, as well as the oldest congregation in Boston, all of which became Unitarian, rejecting the divinity of Christ, and then owing to the influence of transcendentalists like Ralph Waldo Emerson (who was a Unitarian minister for a time, until he resigned in a huff), rejecting Christ altogether in favor of transcendentalism and religious pluralism.

 

[Albion]

More likely than not the Anglican Communion and the Eastern Orthodox would have entered into communion had it not been for the domination of the former by liberal theology in the late 20th century.

FWIW, I have observed, time and time again, hopeful talk about some Anglican agreement with one or more Orthodox church bodies...and it never comes to pass.

There are, of course, traditional Anglican church bodies (not the Anglican Communion which now is a Communion in name only), and some of them have attempted to achieve an inter-communion agreement of one kind or another with one or another Orthodox Eastern jurisdiction, only to have it founder late in the going.

And then there are the Western-rite Orthodox efforts which at first appear to be the Church of Antioch or some other holding out an offer of Anglicans becoming Orthodox but being allowed to retain Anglican prayers, and etc. Those Anglicans who have taken advantage of the opening find that, after a few years, their religious superiors are saying that the "transition" period is over and these people need to become real, normal, Eastern Christians with the emphasis upon Eastern.

There are additional examples that could be cited, but it seems that, in the end, when the Orthodox appear to want connections to Western Christians it's always the kind of "union" the Vatican's "Anglican Ordinariate" turned out to be...or else none at all after years of talks.

All of this does not say that any intercommunion agreement in the 19th century was impossible, but there is plenty of evidence to the effect that Orthodoxy seems not to find it within itself to allow such a thing.

 

[bbbbbbb]

More likely than not the Anglican Communion and the Eastern Orthodox would have entered into communion had it not been for the domination of the former by liberal theology in the late 20th century.

I myself believe that theological liberalism is not exclusively of Germanic origin, but rather represents to a great extent the left over baggage from the 18th century “Enlightenment” which was responsible for, among other horrors, the apostasy of a large number of Congregational churches in New England, including the oldest church in New England, the Old Ship Church in Rhode Island, as well as the oldest congregation in Boston, all of which became Unitarian, rejecting the divinity of Christ, and then owing to the influence of transcendentalists like Ralph Waldo Emerson (who was a Unitarian minister for a time, until he resigned in a huff), rejecting Christ altogether in favor of transcendentalism and religious pluralism.

I agree that unbelief in the form of theological liberalism is not exclusively of Germanic origin, but the developments in later-nineteenth-century German seminaries spread into far more branches of Christianity as a result of historical developments in mainline American Protestant denominations.

The Congregational theological crisis of the late eighteenth century was fairly well contained within New England such that Congregational missionary efforts both foreign and American in the nineteenth century were theologically trinitarian. I think the principal theological weakness both within Congregationalism as well as many other Protestant American denominations was post-Millennialism which manifested itself in the Civil War which, as popularized by the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which was taken in a quite literal sense - Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord . . .

The historical problem developed in the devastating economic depression in the United States in 1873 when it became increasingly obvious to many people that the abolition of slavery in the United States had not ushered in the Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ, not to mention the Depression beginning in 1893. Then came the valiant effort to eradicate alcohol consumption in order to bring in the Millennium. That effort took it on the chin with the 1914-1918 War to End All Wars, followed by the social disaster of the 1920's and the Great Depression followed by the 1941-1945 Hitler War. With a devastated eschatology, former Post-Millennialists grasped at the hope of liberal theology, not so much of the traditional Unitarian variety, but of the German scholarship which had infiltrated many American seminaries.

During all of this American Unitarians began their steady decline. Their great orators passed away and their churches slowly began to lose the social prestige they once held. Their impact on other denominations was relatively muted, as I see it.

 

[The Liturgist]

I agree that unbelief in the form of theological liberalism is not exclusively of Germanic origin, but the developments in later-nineteenth-century German seminaries spread into far more branches of Christianity as a result of historical developments in mainline American Protestant denominations.

The Congregational theological crisis of the late eighteenth century was fairly well contained within New England such that Congregational missionary efforts both foreign and American in the nineteenth century were theologically trinitarian. I think the principal theological weakness both within Congregationalism as well as many other Protestant American denominations was post-Millennialism which manifested itself in the Civil War which, as popularized by the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which was taken in a quite literal sense - Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord . . .

The historical problem developed in the devastating economic depression in the United States in 1873 when it became increasingly obvious to many people that the abolition of slavery in the United States had not ushered in the Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ, not to mention the Depression beginning in 1893. Then came the valiant effort to eradicate alcohol consumption in order to bring in the Millennium. That effort took it on the chin with the 1914-1918 War to End All Wars, followed by the social disaster of the 1920's and the Great Depression followed by the 1941-1945 Hitler War. With a devastated eschatology, former Post-Millennialists grasped at the hope of liberal theology, not so much of the traditional Unitarian variety, but of the German scholarship which had infiltrated many American seminaries.

During all of this American Unitarians began their steady decline. Their great orators passed away and their churches slowly began to lose the social prestige they once held. Their impact on other denominations was relatively muted, as I see it.

I agree with much of what you say. However, the decline you suggest happened to Unitarianism I can’t historically verify. They have been in a position of political and popular ascendence particularly since they absorbed what had been the very Christian, but heterodox, Universalist church.

Unfortunately, in the past few decades, the Unitarian Universalists have been growing at a steady pace in terms of congregational size, political influence and theological influence. Unitarian Universalists are also the wealthiest religion in the US on a per capita basis (from my experience, this I think is largely the result of some of the very wealthy “old money” Bostonian families who comprise the core of its membership). Harvard has always been a bastion of Unitarianism; it was historically founded to be the seminary for the Puritans, who later became Congregationalists, in New England, but its school of divinity was completely taken over by the Unitarians and remains under Unitarian control until the present. Harvard Divinity School has also become extremely influential in popular culture thanks to the sensationalist Gnostic publications of one of its prominent faculty members, Karen L. King.

 

[dzheremi]

In all fairness to everyone, there is no hard evidence the Maronites were monothelites

Yes there is. I don't have the book anymore, but Iraqi historian Matti Moosa documents it in his book on them, The Maronites in History (1986).

They also seem to recognize it themselves, as here in a blurb on their history hosted on the website of a Maronite parish.

they did break away from the Syriac Orthodox Church and claim to have been persecuted by the former, thus leading to their alleged “flight” into the mountains of Lebanon; I am not sure this happened precisely as the Maronite histories allege, given the enormous strategic advantages conveyed by the Lebanese mountains

If you're referring to the 350 martyrs which they blame HH St. Severus for, there is no historical evidence of this, and in fact the celebration of such was not recorded until quite late (16th century or so; again, it's in Moosa's book). Logistically it makes no sense, and again there is zero evidence for it, and it seems to be invented to bolster the 'Chalcedonian cred' that the Maronites needed to have to be in union with Rome in the first place. It's not like it's hard to find historical sources that confirm that the Maronites became Chalcedonians rather late (there are accounts of mass receptions of the 'heretical' Maronites in some of the Latin chronicles of the Crusades, though I forget exactly which at the moment), though I suppose that says nothing either way of their ultimate origins; for that I'd look to other things, like the fact that they apparently have several prayers attributed to St. Jacob of Serugh -- a thoroughly anti-Chalcedonian saint if there ever was one -- which are a standard part of their rites .

Concerning the Chaldeans and Syro Malabar Catholics, the former consisted of an East Syriac tribe which broke away from the Church of the East owing to a dispute concerning the succession of the Catholicos, which at that time was a hereditary office.

Yes, Rome used to be quite good at exploiting schisms like this.

The latter consists of the portion of St. Thomas Christians who did not object to the imposition of certain Latinizations under Portuguese rule, basically, those who did not swear the Coonan Cross Oath. The Church in India used the East Syriac Rite before the Portuguese conquest; after sending a request to Syriac speaking Christians in Mesopotamia and Syria for assistance, the Syriac Orthodox church responded by sending Mar Ahatullah, who was murdered, followed by another bishop who introduced the West Syriac liturgical rite. One prominent member of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church who is a friend of mine is of the opinion that before the Portuguese, there were two hierarchies in India, one loyal to the Catholicos of the East and the other to the Maphrian of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.

This seems to be a fairly standard opinion among the Syriac Indians, and from what I remember is expressed at some points in HH Moran Mor Zakka I Iwas' book on the Syriac dioceses in India (this one I do have in my library; it's just been a while since I've consulted it). I don't know what to think about it, though, since (for example) some of the Syriacs of either faction (i.e., the Malankara Orthodox or the Syrian Orthodox 'Jacobites') still use Eastern Syriac in their liturgies. It's a bit of a trip.

Many scholars on the other hand take the view, primarily based on the historic use of the East Syriac Rite, that the Indian church was exclusively a domain of the Church of the East before the Portuguese conquest of Malabar.

This is the view that I would tend towards, as I've read it and heard it from several Malankara Orthodox sources. The turn towards the Syriac Orthodox via the Coonan Cross Oath, then, would be essentially the establishment of the Syriac Orthodox in that country.

The Church of the East is not Nestorian, by the way (they venerate Nestorius, but their Christology is based on a model by Mar Babai the Great which is identical to the Chalcedonian model)

This is not the place to get into theological debate, but I would only echo what HG Simeon of Beth Arsham said, regardless of who is categorized as what: whosoever does not confess that the holy virgin is Theotokos, let him be anathema.

It should also be noted that historically, Assyrians and Syriac Orthodox have gotten along extremely well, despite the former adhering to a semi-Chalcedonian Christology and the latter a strict Cyriline Christology. In fact, one of the best friends of the greatest Maphrian and one of the great scholars of the Syriac Orthodox Church, Mar Gregorios bar Hebraeus, was the Assyrian Catholicos of the East; when Mar Gregorios reposed while returning to his monastery (that of St. Matthew, I believe, which has miraculously survived ISIS in Iraq) from his cathedral in Tikrit, he reposed in an Assyrian town, and the Catholicos hosted, and several thousand Assyrians attended, his funeral.

This does not surprise me. They are one people divided into different churches.

Here is the current Patriarch's view on such things:

Maybe I should add here that one of the deacons at St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church at which I was baptized identified himself as "Assyrian Orthodox". I hadn't heard that before, so I asked out of ignorance "Do you mean Syriac Orthodox?", and he just repeated it louder "No, ASSYRIAN ORTHODOX." Okay, okay...yet his name was Bishoy (the product of an Egyptian-Iraqi marriage). So I have encountered such people who are definitely within the Church (a Church of the East person would definitely not be serving in the altar of a Coptic Orthodox Church), who call themselves whatever they want, as HH points out above.

So historically, the relationship between the two churches has been amazingly good, and better than the relationship either church historically had with either Rome or the Chalcedonian Orthodox. Indeed, at the same time Mar Gregorios bar Hebraeus was buried by his friend the Catholicos, the Syriac and Coptic Orthodox churches had interrupted communion with the Armenian Apostolic church (perhaps because it was at this time Rome came very close to taking over the Armenian church, and certain Latinizations in the Armenian liturgy, such as the reading of John 1:1-14 at the end of the Soorp Badarak, date from this era).

Didn't Mor Bar Hebraeus write an entire treatise against the Armenians? I've never read it myself, but the summations I've found in it included some criticisms of Armenian Eucharistic practices.

At times, especially under Pope Francis, this frustratingly seems to be the case. One of the things I really liked about Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI is their zeal in suppressing non-traditional theological movements within the Roman Church related to liberalism and liberation theology, and also in suppressing heretical teaching (if you read the archive of decusions of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith during the Pontificates, you will see this in action). Unfortunately Pope Francis has embraced much of what they rejected, and is also less interested it seems in correct doctrine, a dangerously pietist, latitudinarian sentiment in my opinion.

Well, I certainly find his position unenviable, as he is somehow supposed to please all of the various contradictory wings within his particular church, which is literally impossible. Still, I think he could be doing better by being firmer in his theology. Out of respect for our RC friends, I will leave it at that. Lord have mercy.

 

[Blade]

Michie.. so much in that I didn't know.. thank you very much for sharing..

 

[Tim Ray]

The Church as Guardian of the Truth and Teacher of the Word provides food for hungry minds. She does not impose the truth; no more than do Christians impose food on hungry bodies when they practice this corporeal act of mercy.

She guards it because it needs to be protected against the contamination of error. She teaches it because it is more nourishing than error. Moreover, the truth enables her to teach realistically about the truth of Christ, the truth of the Catholic Church, and the truth of man. Apostles are ministers of love, but they are also servants of the truth.

By Dr. Donald DeMarco, Professor of Philosophy, St. Jerome’s College at U. of Waterloo, he is married with 5 children.

Taken from The Bread of Life Magazine, July / Aug. Volume 26 Number 3, with minor editing by me.

 

[Tim Ray]

The Origin of Truth

History reveals that the advancement of truth always comes with a high price and most people are unwilling to pay the price. It is much more comfortable to remain within the social and religious comforts of fellowship than to follow the Spirit into the desert of rejection where often, you are alone with God. The Bible represents people as sheep for good reason. They prefer to flock together. They also tend to follow their leaders (political and religious) without thinking or thoroughly studying matters out for themselves. Consider all the religious thought that Hindus, Moslems, Catholics, Jews, Protestants, atheists and pagans believe today. All of these different ideas about God came from spiritual leaders who are as blind as the people they guide. (Matthew 23:16)

People are capable of believing anything. Man’s diversity proves that religious systems have nothing to do with eternal truth. Even though Catholics and Protestants insist their views come directly from Scripture, a cursory study of Scripture can demonstrate otherwise. Truth is not determined by a majority vote or acceptance. Thoughtfully consider these amazing words: “Truth is not what I believe. Truth is not even what I know. Truth is fact. I may not believe it. I may not know it. That does not change it. It is there nevertheless, waiting to be discovered and believed. Truth does not depend on the unsettled and changing opinions of men. It was truth before it was believed. It remains truth whether it is believed or not. Reason does not originate or create it. It merely discovers it. Consequently, reason is not a source. Truth goes back beyond reason. Others would have us believe that the church is the source of authority, particularly in matters of theology. They are wrong. The church is the product of truth. It does not originate it. It came into being by accepting divine revelation. It is not the source of that revelation. Truth goes beyond the church, it is antecedent to it.” (When a Man Dies, Carlyle B. Haynes (1882-1958); p.5)

(The Lambs Book of Life, by Larry Wilson, pg. 151)

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Origin of Truth

History reveals that the advancement of truth always comes with a high price and most people are unwilling to pay the price. It is much more comfortable to remain within the social and religious comforts of fellowship than to follow the Spirit into the desert of rejection where often, you are alone with God. The Bible represents people as sheep for good reason. They prefer to flock together. They also tend to follow their leaders (political and religious) without thinking or thoroughly studying matters out for themselves. Consider all the religious thought that Hindus, Moslems, Catholics, Jews, Protestants, atheists and pagans believe today. All of these different ideas about God came from spiritual leaders who are as blind as the people they guide. (Matthew 23:16)

People are capable of believing anything. Man’s diversity proves that religious systems have nothing to do with eternal truth. Even though Catholics and Protestants insist their views come directly from Scripture, a cursory study of Scripture can demonstrate otherwise. Truth is not determined by a majority vote or acceptance. Thoughtfully consider these amazing words: “Truth is not what I believe. Truth is not even what I know. Truth is fact. I may not believe it. I may not know it. That does not change it. It is there nevertheless, waiting to be discovered and believed. Truth does not depend on the unsettled and changing opinions of men. It was truth before it was believed. It remains truth whether it is believed or not. Reason does not originate or create it. It merely discovers it. Consequently, reason is not a source. Truth goes back beyond reason. Others would have us believe that the church is the source of authority, particularly in matters of theology. They are wrong. The church is the product of truth. It does not originate it. It came into being by accepting divine revelation. It is not the source of that revelation. Truth goes beyond the church, it is antecedent to it.” (When a Man Dies, Carlyle B. Haynes (1882-1958); p.5)

(The Lambs Book of Life, by Larry Wilson, pg. 151)

Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13 So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 14 For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.

 

[jamiec]

I always enjoy these sorts of discussions. My church is the oldest church on the planet because yours schismed from ours - nah, nah, nah. Therefore, because we are the oldest and the best, we alone possess all TRUTH!

I find this kind of thing off-putting and depressing and laughable in equal measure. That type of apologetic leaves out so many theological questions that need to be asked. It takes far too much for granted: that is one. reason why it is inconvincing.

“By this shall all men know that you are my disciples...”

- by what: by their apologetics ? by the amount of charitable works they boast of ? by how numerous they are ? by how long their history is ? by how many Saints they boast of ? By a thousand other things ? By none of those, but by this:

“.....that you love one another”.

Boasting is a fault in children - it is not a fruit or gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[jamiec]

But we are not the only church with truths. Even the CC says so. See CCC817-820.
Truth cannot be possessed.
The world, in general, harbor a distinct fear of the truth. This fear may be analyzed on three different levels:

1) that the truth would impose unwanted moral responsibilities on them;
2) that any association with the truth would occasion an air of pretentiousness;
3) that any claim to the truth might expose them to being wrong.

They prefer freedom from moral responsibility, absence of any “holier than thou” attitude and exemption from the possible embarrassment of being in error. Their fears, however, take them from the very light and meaning they long for, and plunge them into a dark void were they are trapped by a misery of their own making. Their flight from the truth is also an entrance into a world of gloom.

These three fears are ill fated, as well as ill founded. First of all, truth is our only avenue to real freedom. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

Ignorance may at times be blissful, but it is never illuminating. St. Augustine once remarked that he had met many people who had been deceived, but never met anyone who wanted to be deceived.

We have a natural hunger for the truth of things. No one ever asks for the wrong time. It is always the “right” time and the truth about things we want to learn.

Untruth is not helpful, but truth is like a beacon that shows us the way. This is why the Pope titled his great encyclical on the freeing function of truth as Veritas Splendor (Truth’s Splendor).

When we are lost we want to lean the truth about our situation so that we can be liberated from our confusion. The truth makes us free; untruth binds us to bewilderment.

The truth about ourselves awakens us to our moral responsibilities, but we need this awakening in order to become whom we truly are, to advance toward our destiny, to build a meaningful life.

We should welcome the truth that illuminates our moral responsibilities with the same enthusiasm that a person who is lost in the woods and welcomes a compass and a map.

Secondly, the fear that any discovery of truth would make us pretentious is also counterproductive. Truth is not of our own making. Even Christ proclaimed that the truth He illuminated did not spring from Him alone. “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 17:6)

Truth is not subjective. It represents the objective order of things. The person who comes to know something of the truth, then should experience humility, not vanity, for he discovers something that is not his.

Christ was emphatic in his denunciation of the Pharisees who claimed to know something of the truth but behaved with a pretentious snobbery. Truth is not he cause of Pharisaism, vanity is.

And both Christ and his Church are unrelenting in their advocacy of humility and in their condemnation of vanity. In fact, it may be far less tolerant of Pharisaism than the secular world. Consider, for example, the comment, “I hate anything fake,” made by Britney Spears, a veritable icon of artificiality and pretense. The secular world awards this kind of duplicity with celebrity.

Thirdly, there is the rather spineless fear that in perusing the truth, we might fall into the embarrassing predicament of being wrong. Again, there is nothing wrong that can reasonably justify this anxiety. We all make mistakes. Not to try something for fear of making a mistake is akin to a paralyzing neurosis that would discourage one from trying anything.

Some people avoid marriage because they fear divorce. Others avoid friendship because they fear rejection. The pursuit of truth presupposes a certain amount of courage. If nothing is ventured, as the maxim goes, nothing is gained.

The fact that truth is indispensable for a meaningful life does not mean that it is always agreeable. Mounting the bathroom scale can be a breathless ascent, because the anxious weight-watcher knows that this simple piece of machinery tells the truth.

But he disconcerting truth that one is overweight may be exactly what one needs if exercising and dieting are to follow. The freedom that health offers may need to be preceded by the disagreeable truth that one is too fat.

Truth is as natural to our minds as oxygen is to our lungs and food is to our digestive system. It is a great mistake to regard the teaching of truth as an imposition. The Church does not, nor can she, “impose” truth.

Rather, she endeavors to propose truths to those who are disposed to receive them. The Vatican’s Declaration of Religious Liberty states that, “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with gentleness and power.

The Church as Guardian of the Truth and Teacher of the Word provides food for hungry minds. She does not impose the truth; no more than do Christians impose food on hungry bodies when they practice this corporeal act of mercy.

She guards it because it needs to be protected against the contamination of error. She teaches it because it is more nourishing than error. Moreover, the truth enables her to teach realistically about the truth of Christ, the truth of the Catholic Church, and the truth of man. Apostles are ministers of love, but they are also servants of the truth.

By Dr. Donald DeMarco, Professor of Philosophy, St. Jerome’s College at U. of Waterloo, he is married with 5 children.

Taken from The Bread of Life Magazine, July / Aug. Volume 26 Number 3, with minor editing by me.

This ignores how truths need to be apprehended subjectively if they are to be of any practical use.

The reaction against subjectivism & relativism has gone too far when it stresses only the so-called “objective” element in what is the case, at the cost of ignoring the need for what is the case to be apprehended by the personal subject to whom what is the case is known.

The acts of intellectual apprehension that are called “knowing” have two aspects, not only the one.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I find this kind of thing off-putting and depressing and laughable in equal measure. That type of apologetic leaves out so many theological questions that need to be asked. It takes far too much for granted: that is one. reason why it is inconvincing.

“By this shall all men know that you are my disciples...”

- by what: by their apologetics ? by the amount of charitable works they boast of ? by how numerous they are ? by how long their history is ? by how many Saints they boast of ? By a thousand other things ? By none of those, but by this:

“.....that you love one another”.

Boasting is a fault in children - it is not a fruit or gift of the Holy Spirit.

Nicely put. Thank you!

 

[The Liturgist]

• Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
• Antioch Eulalius c. 322 Arian
• Antioch Euphronius c. 327-c. 329 Arian
• Constantinople Eusebius 341-42 Arian
• Constantinople Macedonius 342-60 Semi-Arian
• Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
• Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
• Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
• Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
• Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
• Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
• Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
• Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
• Antioch Peter the Fuller 470, 475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
• Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
• Antioch John Codonatus 477, 488 Monophysite
• Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
• Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
• Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
• Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
• Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
• Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
• Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
• Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
• Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
• Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
• Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
• Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
• Antioch Sergius c. 542-c. 557 Monophysite
• Antioch Paul “the Black” c. 557-578 Monophysite
• Alexandria Damianus 570-c. 605 Monophysite
• Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
• Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
• Antioch Anthanasius c. 621-629 Monothelite
• Alexandria Cyrus c. 630-642 Monothelite
• Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
• Antioch Macedonius 640-c. 655 Monothelite
• Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
• Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
• Antioch Macarius c. 655-681 Monothelite
• Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite

"champions of orthodoxy"??? seriously???

Nonsense, I made no such provision. It never occurred to the SynodS of Hippo and the Council of Carthage to present their findings on the canon of Scripture which was ratified and made binding on all Christians by Pope Damascus in 408? i would expect such a comic book view of the Magisterium from a paranoid fundamentalist, not an orthodox.
So what. They held heretical doctrines and were excommunicated. The emperor has no authority to excommunicate. Your polemics is just that, misleading nonsense.
OFF TOPIC, RED HERRING.
OFF TOPIC, RED HERRING, STUPID AND INSULTING BASELSS FLAMING ZINGER. .

Actually, of the alleged “Monophysite” patriarchs you mention, none of them were actual monophysites, but were rather miaphysites, following the precise Christological formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Roman Catholic Church, in its dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox, now acknowledges this; the Roman church has established that its Christology is compatible with the Miaphysite Christology of the Oriental Orthodox, and the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Churches (CCEL) permits Eastern Catholics to receive the Eucharist at Oriental Orthodox parishes, and vice versa, if an Eastern Catholic or Oriental Orthodox priest is unavailable.

Interestingly, unlike the Eastern Orthodox, to whom the same reciprocal access is offered, but seldom if ever allowed to be used by EO clergy, I have come across numerous reports of Syriac Orthodox Christians receiving communion in Roman Catholic churches, and also have heard of Syriac Orthodox priests extending Eucharistic hospitality to Roman Catholics, particularly in the Middle East (for example, at the Syriac Orthodox parish in Istanbul).

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes there is. I don't have the book anymore, but Iraqi historian Matti Moosa documents it in his book on them, The Maronites in History (1986).

They also seem to recognize it themselves, as here in a blurb on their history hosted on the website of a Maronite parish.




If you're referring to the 350 martyrs which they blame HH St. Severus for, there is no historical evidence of this, and in fact the celebration of such was not recorded until quite late (16th century or so; again, it's in Moosa's book). Logistically it makes no sense, and again there is zero evidence for it, and it seems to be invented to bolster the 'Chalcedonian cred' that the Maronites needed to have to be in union with Rome in the first place. It's not like it's hard to find historical sources that confirm that the Maronites became Chalcedonians rather late (there are accounts of mass receptions of the 'heretical' Maronites in some of the Latin chronicles of the Crusades, though I forget exactly which at the moment), though I suppose that says nothing either way of their ultimate origins; for that I'd look to other things, like the fact that they apparently have several prayers attributed to St. Jacob of Serugh -- a thoroughly anti-Chalcedonian saint if there ever was one -- which are a standard part of their rites .



Yes, Rome used to be quite good at exploiting schisms like this.



This seems to be a fairly standard opinion among the Syriac Indians, and from what I remember is expressed at some points in HH Moran Mor Zakka I Iwas' book on the Syriac dioceses in India (this one I do have in my library; it's just been a while since I've consulted it). I don't know what to think about it, though, since (for example) some of the Syriacs of either faction (i.e., the Malankara Orthodox or the Syrian Orthodox 'Jacobites') still use Eastern Syriac in their liturgies. It's a bit of a trip.



This is the view that I would tend towards, as I've read it and heard it from several Malankara Orthodox sources. The turn towards the Syriac Orthodox via the Coonan Cross Oath, then, would be essentially the establishment of the Syriac Orthodox in that country.



This is not the place to get into theological debate, but I would only echo what HG Simeon of Beth Arsham said, regardless of who is categorized as what: whosoever does not confess that the holy virgin is Theotokos, let him be anathema.



This does not surprise me. They are one people divided into different churches.

Here is the current Patriarch's view on such things:

Maybe I should add here that one of the deacons at St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church at which I was baptized identified himself as "Assyrian Orthodox". I hadn't heard that before, so I asked out of ignorance "Do you mean Syriac Orthodox?", and he just repeated it louder "No, ASSYRIAN ORTHODOX." Okay, okay...yet his name was Bishoy (the product of an Egyptian-Iraqi marriage). So I have encountered such people who are definitely within the Church (a Church of the East person would definitely not be serving in the altar of a Coptic Orthodox Church), who call themselves whatever they want, as HH points out above.



Didn't Mor Bar Hebraeus write an entire treatise against the Armenians? I've never read it myself, but the summations I've found in it included some criticisms of Armenian Eucharistic practices.



Well, I certainly find his position unenviable, as he is somehow supposed to please all of the various contradictory wings within his particular church, which is literally impossible. Still, I think he could be doing better by being firmer in his theology. Out of respect for our RC friends, I will leave it at that. Lord have mercy.

Thank you @dzheremi for this brilliant, edifying and extremely well written post. I learned a lot. We need more content like this on CF.com