As you may be aware, several Christian churches in Kirkuk, Mosul, Basra, and Baghdad, as well as throughout the rest of Iraq, cancelled their festivities this past Christmas. Ever since the massacre of worshippers in Baghdad’s Church of Our Lady of Salvation last November—followed by attacks on Christian neighborhoods in the city—the Christians of Iraq have been living in a state of unrelieved terror, and they simply do not dare celebrate their faith too openly right now. Moreover, there is no reason to imagine that their situation will become any more tolerable in any conceivable near future.
There are beleaguered Christian communities throughout much of the Muslim world, of course, but it is quite possible that the last remnants of ancient Persian Christianity in Iraq and perhaps Iran will disappear in our lifetimes. If so, and if Persian Christianity is largely reduced to a fragmentary diaspora community, it will mark the end of yet another tragic episode in one of the more extraordinary tales in Christian history—though it is a tale regarding which most Christians know absolutely nothing.
Most of the Christians of Iraq belong to “Assyrian” tradition: the tradition, that is, of the Church of the East (often, and somewhat opprobriously, called the “Nestorian” Church) and of its sixteenth-century offshoot the Chaldean Catholic Church (occasionally, and somewhat opprobriously, called the “Uniate” Chaldean Church). Today, even many Christians who know something of the Eastern churches tend to think of the Assyrian communions as little more than exotic marginal sects; even among the “Oriental” churches (that is, the ancient Eastern communions that did not adopt the Christological formula of Chalcedon in the fifth century) they are often regarded as the least significant.
And yet at one time—from late antiquity right up into the high middle ages—the Church of the East was, in geographic terms, far and away the largest Christian communion in the world, and the most actively evangelical. Had there been such a thing as accurate cartography in the early thirteenth century, any good map of the Christian world might have suggested to a casual observer that European Christianity was little more than a local phenomenon, a sort of provincial annex at the western edge of Assyrian Christendom. Demographically, of course, the balances tipped in the opposite direction. Still, though, the Church of the East was anything but a marginal communion.
The Christianity of all of Syria was from a very early period both an exceedingly scholarly and an exceedingly ascetical tradition. But there was also something of a difference in sensibility between the religious culture to the west, whose intellectual center was Antioch, and that to the East, whose intellectual center was Nisibis. What became the distinct Assyrian tradition, with its distinctive Christological vocabulary, emerged out of the latter. After Nisibis was conquered by Persia in 363, the educated Christians of the city removed to Edessa and other parts of Syria still under Byzantine control; but a little more than a century later, when the Emperor Zeno (d. 491) attempted to impose the Chalcedonian settlement throughout the region, the East Syrian Christian scholars were forced to retreat to Nisibis again, and to the shelter of the Persian Empire, which turned out to be quite tolerant of them.
In 498, the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon assumed the title “Patriarch of the East.” After 553, when the Second Council of Constantinople formally condemned the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-429), the Antiochian theologian and biblical exegete whose writings were foundational for East Syrian theology, the Assyrian Church was more or less a theological world all to itself. As it happened, however, this proved to be anything but a historical catastrophe. Pushed out beyond the farthest boundaries of the Byzantine empire, with no hope of reconciliation, the Assyrian Church found itself on the frontier of all of Asia, where no other Christians could even hope to venture.
The Christian scholars of Nisibis and, later, Jundishapur were a disciplined monastic community, devoted to the study of theology and philosophy, as well as to the translation of scripture, Christian literature, and classical Greek texts into Syriac, and renowned for the quality of their medical training. Their zeal for winning converts did not seem to falter before the vast geographical distances or dangerously alien cultures of the Central and East Asia. The Church established itself over time not only in the Mesopotamian region of the Persian Empire, but in eastern Anatolia, Kurdistan, Turkestan, and well beyond. In 635, Patriarch Yashuyab II (d. 643) inaugurated a mission to China that flourished right through the age of the Khans.
East Syrian Christian missions naturally followed the trade routes to the Far East. Merchant caravans from the Arabian Peninsula, India, Central Asia, and China passed through Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and the monks of the Assyrian Church—with their very useful technical, scribal, and medical skills with them—followed in their van, looking for places where their training would make them and the gospel they had to preach welcome. Simply in providing trained physicians and scholars, the East Syrian Church often proved itself an immense benefit to the areas where it settled. Wherever the Church established a new bishopric in its eastward migrations, it built a school, a library, and a hospital. By the late fifth century, the Assyrian mission to Turkestan was under way and would in time reach out to the Mongols. In 781 a Turkish king petitioned Nisibis for a bishop, and soon Episcopal sees were established in Tashkent, Bukhara, and Samarkand. Soon missions were also sent to the Keraits, Uighurs, and other Central Asian tribes.
And then there was China. We know much of the early story of the “Radiant Religion”—that is, Christianity—in China principally from a stone stele dating from 781 and discovered by Jesuit missionaries in Sian-fu in the Shaanxi province in 1625. The T’ang Emperor T’ai-tsung (d. 649) granted an audience to a Persian monk around 638 and was impressed enough (or indifferent enough) to give him permission to preach and found a monastery. For two centuries, the Assyrian mission thrived. Churches and monasteries were established in at least ten provinces.
We know also that the mission suffered a temporary reversal of fortunes in the ninth century, when the Emperor Wu-tsung (d. 846) laicized all the native priests and monks in the kingdom. But there were still monasteries in China in the eleventh century, and around 1095 the Patriarch of the East, Sebaryeshu III, appointed a bishop to the see of Cathay (or Northern China). Even as late as the thirteenth century, when the Radiant Religion enjoyed the favor of the Mongol court of Kublai Khan (1215-1295), Chinese monasteries were still being built. And in 1280, Mark, the Chinese (Uighur) bishop of Cathay became the Syrian Patriarch of the East, under the name Yahbalaha III (d. 1317).
How far the East Syrian missions reached we are never likely to know for certain. The “Thomas Christians” of India were East Syrian in theology, loyalty, and population from an early period, and in the eight and ninth centuries the new immigrants who swelled the numbers of the Malankara Christians of India were definitely East Syrian. As early as the sixth century, Cosmas Indicopleustes encountered East Syrian Christians on the remote island of Socotra in the Indian Ocean, and there are passing references in texts from later centuries to one or another bishop of Socotra. And East Syrian missions definitely penetrated into Tibet before the late eighth century. Some historians even believe there is sufficient textual and physical evidence to suggest that East Syrian Christians reached Sri Lanka, Java, Sumatra, Japan, Korea, Burma, Malaya, Vietnam, and Thailand.
By the end of the middle ages, however, the Assyrian communion had been reduced to a shadow of its former magnificence. There had been some pressure upon the native sees from the time of the Islamic conquest of the Persian Empire, but East Syrian scholars and physicians had for centuries occupied a vital place in the Caliphate. But the greater Assyrian Christian world of Central and East Asia had remained intact and largely unperturbed into the fourteenth century. Of course, the Christians of Central Asia suffered terribly along with everyone else when the horde of Genghis Khan (c. 1150-1227) was destroying every village and city in its path. But the grandsons of Genghis—Möngke (1208-1259), Kublai (1215-1294), and Hulegu (1217-1265)—were for the most part well disposed towards the Assyrian communities. Hulegu even took a Christian wife.
In the late thirteenth century, however, the great reversal began. In Baghdad, Ghazan Khan (r. 1295-1304) adopted Islam, and at once the East Syrian Christian community became the object of ferocious persecutions, including numerous massacres. Then, in 1369, the Ming Dynasty came to power in China and instituted a systematic extermination of foreign creeds. The Assyrian Church had soon disappeared. And in Central Asia the rampages of the Turkic Muslim warlord Timur (1336-1405) left no living traces of East Syrian Christianity in their wake.
And yet, down the centuries the Church of the East has persisted: a small community, perennially persecuted in the place of its birth, and until very recently seemingly indomitable. Far away from there—in India, where it has had a home for centuries, and in North America, where it has had to find a new home in a dark time, and elsewhere—its scattered branches continue to bear fruit, not copiously, perhaps, but indefatigably. But in its homeland it is being pushed towards the edge of extinction.
So it goes, I suppose. History is not at our command, and the future does not lie in our power; we must do what we can, but we can do only so much. And, in the end, all cultures rise and fall; none is eternal. Nevertheless, for anyone who knows the strange, glorious, and too often forgotten history of the Church of the East, it is difficult to view the current situation without a very special and very intense bitterness.
David Bentley Hart is a contributing editor of First Things. His most recent book is Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press). His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Comments:
Doesn't our Lady protect us? What went wrong?
Many of us might do well to pray and think about this for a while; such things indeed, challenge our faith.
' You be one that the world may believe ' - his life has shown us amply how such promises are not in vain ; fall of communism - very likely from the difficult and partial steps to ameliorate divisions that has made it possible for faith to be sustained and even thrive .
Had not realised that The Church of the East has such an extensive and tragic history !
One small correction - would have liked to see it written how that Church too , like all other Churches, had started out as a Catholic Church honoring St.Peter ( knowing these are 'dangerous ' words , it is with no intent to wound any particular Church member - just trying to express truths as percieved ! )
and that His mercy which is promised for a thousand generations on those who fear Him , still sustain many !
From what I have read , the Thomas Christians , the second largest Eastern Church of SyroMalabar , was very blessed to have returned to union with The Church as soon as they found out that they were not so and by not their own error ( complex and often distorted history ) .
Hopefully , that would be the lesson for all the Churches - trusting in the promise and striving to make it happen !
May the intercession of Our Lady of Salvation help us to see our unity in a Mother and drive out the divisor with all its intentions !
May intercession of Pope John Paul II be with us and all the suffering - God granting him even more role in helping persons to trust in The Father and His goodness !
This is just so much eyewash, it makes one's head spin. Does the name "Synod of Diamper" mean anything to you? Are you aware that the Latin Church in India keeps the Syro-Malabarese locked up in an effective ghetto in eastern India, and does not allow it to evangelize outside of that territory, or even see to the needs of its faithful? Or that the Syro-Malabarese Catholic Church has been so thoroughly latinized over the centuries that it is danger of losing its liturgical, theological and spiritual patrimony?
Try not to be so triumphalist, and perhaps be a little better informed about the real life of the Eastern Churches in communion with the Church of Rome. It's been a very mixed blessing, let me tell you.
One inaccurate point in your article: It was not the bishop of Nisibis who became the Patriarch-Catholicos of the Church of the East, but rather the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the Persian imperial capital. The first declaration by the Church of the East about its canonical relationship to the Roman imperial church was at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon of 424, which declared the primacy of the Patriarch-Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon within the Persian Empire and his equal standing vis-a-vis the patriarchs in the West.
This synod also affirmed for the first time the Nicene creed. Your reference to a late 5th-century bishop of Nisibis is probably echoing the formative role that Barsauma of Nisibis had in shaping the theology of the Church of the East at that time, effectively making an extreme dyophysite position binding on the entire church. That said, Barsauma was never able to get himself elected Catholicos, despite his lifetime of trying. Incidentally, he was also successful in temporarily forbidding clerical and monastic celibacy in the Church of the East, a move that could variously be seen as a reaction against Messalianism, a capitulation to Zoroastrian criticisms of Christian asceticism, or an attempt to legitimize the fact that he lived with a nun.
For a primary sources on the history of the organization of the Church of the East, see the Synodicon Orientale, edited and translated into French by Chabot and into German by Braun. The only two recent comprehensive English-language histories of the Church of the East are Baum and Winkler's The Church of the East: A Concise History and Baumer's The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. Both are very accessible reads and generally pretty useful.
“Had there been such a thing as accurate cartography in the early thirteenth century, any good map of the Christian world might have suggested to a casual observer that European Christianity was little more than a local phenomenon, a sort of provincial annex at the western edge of Assyrian Christendom. Demographically, of course, the balances tipped in the opposite direction.”
Why did Roman Catholicism triumph over other early Christian churches? Was it “demographics” as Hart suggests here, or was God’s hand guiding the process? If it’s demographics, then Protestants who are justly proud of the missionary victories of the nineteenth century and atheists, agnostics, and advocates of new spiritualities who see their ranks swelling today need to temper their triumphalism. The successes of the Roman Catholic Church and of Protestantism are directly tied to the triumph of European colonialism, and as those empires fade, those churches may find themselves more and more like the Assyrian Church.
“There had been some pressure upon the native sees from the time of the Islamic conquest of the Persian Empire, but East Syrian scholars and physicians had for centuries occupied a vital place in the Caliphate. But the greater Assyrian Christian world of Central and East Asia had remained intact and largely unperturbed into the fourteenth century.”
“In the late thirteenth century, however, the great reversal began. In Baghdad, Ghazan Khan (r. 1295-1304) adopted Islam, and at once the East Syrian Christian community became the object of ferocious persecutions, including numerous massacres. Then, in 1369, the Ming Dynasty came to power in China and instituted a systematic extermination of foreign creeds. The Assyrian Church had soon disappeared.”
There is a lot of dark talk on First Things about the Islamic threat, but these two passages from Hart remind us that Islam itself is not the problem: the choices made by individual leaders and societies matter. Thus, the Assyrian Church thrives for 800 years under Islamic rule in the Caliphate. The situation for the Assyrian Church changes not because of Islam but because Ghazan Khan takes Islam in an especially bloody direction. And the Ming Dynasty doesn’t even need the excuse of Islam. It persecutes out of its political and ideological calculations.
“So it goes, I suppose. History is not at our command, and the future does not lie in our power; we must do what we can, but we can do only so much. And, in the end, all cultures rise and fall; none is eternal.”
Including perhaps the power now lodged in the Eternal City. Rome hasn’t always been as central and commanding as it appears today, nor will it be tomorrow. Which Christian traditions thrive in this millennium is anybody’s guess, though I have faith that the gospel will continue to be preached regardless.
As an aside, I think Rodney Stark has said that early Christianity spread at roughly the same rate as Mormonism is today. Now there’s an interesting future!
You said, “It's sad to think what could have been. The Assyrians never managed to make themselves any state's official religion, so they relied on mission work to convert people. Then Islam came to show war and dhimmitude are far better mission tools. It's a depressing lesson of history.”
You’re thinking like the world thinks. The only conversion that matters is that of the heart. By its nature, war cannot be a mission tool. It can only provide the appearance of one.
---
Stuart Koehl,
You said, “This is just so much eyewash, it makes one's head spin….Try not to be so triumphalist, and perhaps be a little better informed about the real life of the Eastern Churches in communion with the Church of Rome. It's been a very mixed blessing, let me tell you.”
Why all this petulance? You know that this audience doesn’t know much about Eastern Churches of whatever kind, but every time the subject comes up you curse the commenters and sometimes even the essayists for their ignorance and insult them. Do you have to do that? Is it really necessary? What do you gain from all this dyspepsia? Why can’t you explain the situation as calmly and thoughtfully as Hart does?
I have not read the Philip Jenkins book to which you allude, though I have read other books of his with great pleasure. This column is a condensed treatment of earlier writings of mine, presenting a popular treatment of the Assyrian Church's history, most of which antedate that volume. So any mistakes in here are my very own.
You are right, however, that the patriarchate of the East was established in Seleucia-Ctesiphon. I was under the impression, however, that Dadisho was declared the equal of the patriarchs in 424, but that the title of Patriarch of the East became standard canonical usage only under Babai in 498. I am quite willing to believe I was mistaken on that point, though, as my only source for it is an imperfect memory.
A few corrections: Zeno did not impose Chalcedonianism, but the Henoticon forbidding discussion of the subject, yet the relevant action was the closing of the "School of the Persians" in Edessa in 489. It was not the bishop of Nisibis who became "Catholicos-Patriarch of the East," but the metropolitan of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of the Persian Empire. It is not clear that the 635 mission to China was initiated by Catholicos Ishoyahb II, nor is it certain to what degree Christianity may have survived in China between the 9th century and the Mongol conquests. The Golden Horde was *not* the army of Genghis Khan, but the khanate established in the southern Russian steppe by his grandson Batu, the son of Jochi; central Asian Christianity did take a hit with Genghis Khan's invasions in the early 13th century (for example destroying the major Christian metropolitanate of Merv, modern Mari in Turkmenistan), but appears to have been more decisively suppressed in the mid-14th century by rulers of the Chaghatai Khanate. Anyway, these are the remonstrances of a pedant, and thank you again for bringing this to a wider audience!
You are quite right on a number of details. But the closure of the Edessan school and the promulgation of the Henoticon were certainly seen by the Assyrian Christians as an imposition of Chalcedonianism, since it was in practice only they who were silenced. Forgive me for abbreviating the story, though.
As for the casual use of Golden Horde to describe all of the Mongol forces, rather than just Batu's "golden-tented camp" or Russian Khanate, I admit it's not accurate. That's why I put it in scare-quotes. It has become common parlance, and it has a certain poetic grandeur, but one probably should not succumb. After all, there was a Blue Horde as well, and no one would think of that as a particularly poetical image.
Finally, Assyrian tradition seems to make the Catholicos the originator of the Chinese mission, though admittedly that might be just a matter of "in the reign of." I think that most such missions certainly would have been undertaken only with patriarchal license.
As someone, like yourself, originally of a Western Christian heritage, I earnestly commend to you the endeavor of investigating seriously the possibility that the Church of the East is in fact the True Church in a fuller and truer sense than even the Eastern Orthodox Church. I believe, in fact, that the fullness of truth in this Church rises to the level of a divinely preserved perfection that has persisted for 2000 years, and will persist until the Second Coming.
It is not possible, of course, to explain fully the reasons for my conviction in a brief blog post comment. Suffice it to say that I see serious problems with the Third, and even more with the Fifth, Ecumenical Councils. Both councils (which, by the way, were really only local councils of the Roman Empire, and thus not truly Ecumenical) unwarrantedly condemned as false and heterodox a Christological tradition, namely, the Antiochene, that is in fact true and orthodox.
Now to condemn what is true as false implicates the condemning party just as surely in falsehood themselves, as it would be for them to affirm as true what is false (the latter of which is generally the more customary modality of heresy or error). The Church of the East alone among Christian bodies of apostolic lineage has never engaged in either type of error. Hence, it is the True Church of Christ.
One contention: that the Church of the East was a 5th century offshoot is debatable. I think it would behoove us to also consider what the theologians of the Church of the East have stated about their own history. No? For a scholarly account, I recommend consulting Bishop Mar Bawai Soro's doctoral work on the apostolic origins of the Church of the East, i.e. the Patriachate of Mesopotamia in "The Church of the East: Apostolic and Orthodox" (Adiabene, 2008).
This doesn't say the Assyrian Church was a 5th century offshoot. It only states that it was in the 5th century that the formal division occurred between Byzantine and East Syrian Christianity.
"There is a lot of dark talk on First Things about the Islamic threat, but these two passages from Hart remind us that Islam itself is not the problem: the choices made by individual leaders and societies matter."
Islam forms and justifies the problem. While the khans and especially Tamurlane were primarily responsible for ultimately wiping out the Assyrian Christians, muslims had been slaughtering and enslaving them, and reduced them to second class citizens, for centuries.
Yes, it all happened while a small minority of Syriac christians translated most of the ancient scientific, medical and literary classics into Arabic for their new rulers.
I read some St. Isaac, dude had it going on. Even the Eastern Orthodox liked him so much they canonized him despite his being a Nestorian.
I think the word choice of "tradition" is problematic here:
"The Christianity of all of Syria was from a very early period both an exceedingly scholarly and an exceedingly ascetical tradition. But there was also something of a difference in sensibility between the religious culture to the west, whose intellectual center was Antioch, and that to the East, whose intellectual center was Nisibis. What became the distinct Assyrian tradition, with its distinctive Christological vocabulary, emerged out of the latter. "
Surely, by "distinct Assyrian tradition,", e.g. liturgical or doctrinal, we can't overlook 1st century apostles of Mar Addai and Mari who wrote the oldest known liturgy (in Syriac) for the churches in Mesopotamia and beyond, along with other doctrinal works?
The Church of the East claims these as the originators of their "tradition." This is what I meant by saying that the "distinct Assyrian tradition" is not an offshoot, i.e. "emerged" out of Nisibis but was already established much earlier.
Christ brought the Word to a people oppressed and occupied by a foreign power. Unlike Mohammed, he never preached the triumph of a political state, and he does not measure his Church by its political success. God’s will can be seen in the Assyrian Church’s long survival as well as in the relatively recent and probably short-lived success of the Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. As Hart observes, a betting man in the thirteenth century would have placed his money on Assyrian Christianity, not Western.
From first hand experience , this much could be said - the SyroMalabar Church in its native land is not in any 'ghetto ' set up !
If at all, it is the other way around - having had a mind set of having been converted from 'higher class' locals ( even Jewish immigrants as these narratives go ! ) , it is those who have been the later converts after the arrival of the missionaries from Rome who have been looked down upon - based on the cast system mentality !
Our ancestors had almost 1500 years to convert the rest of India and neghboring places !
Yet , that did not happen and may be the above article gives some
( providential ! ) reasons as to why !
The seeds for the present vibrancy in The S.M Church were planted with the arrival of the missionaries from Rome and the Church has also been spared - atleast at the lay level , much of the prevailing animosities of the rest of the East , in spite of 'history experts ' and those with other agendas who try to stir up same on occasion !
Thus , there are many of her sons and daughters serving in the Latin Dioceses of the rest of India , without consideration of 'Church Politics' .
There in also might lie the source of her strenght - may be in atonement for the past neglects , may be as a shining light in the critical need for 'mercification' as a foundation for Church unity which could make all the diffrence , for our suffering brethren all over !
Peace !
'Christ brought the Word to a people oppressed and occupied by a foreign power. Unlike Mohammed, he never preached the triumph of a political state, and he does not measure his Church by its political success.'
The Assyrians have been a people oppressed by foreign powers for over a millennium, I don't see them benefitting too much from that these days. They now number a hundred thousand or so. It's great and easy to talk about how politics don't matter in God's apolitical world, that Christ came to the oppressed and colonized and look what great things He did for them - but it ignores reality.
These people were once the largest church in history, numbered tens of millions, and now number tens of thousands. Reality matters, bro.
No, they had their mass, in the morning and quietly. What they cancelled were festivities: lights, processions, public gift-giving, etc. Even Santa Claus distributing gifts to children.
Incidentally, "festivities" refers to religious "feast" days. A little etymology goes a long way. As does a little common sense.
Once divided into West vs. East - why was one more successful than the other? The success of Europe, was probably partially due to the fact that it had much better farmland and woodland; whereas most of the Middle East is at best Mediterranean scrub, and then finally, desert. Then too, Europe was not as landlocked; so it was always outward-looking and seafaring. Which encouraged collecting wisdom and wealth from many other countries. Finally that multi-cultural experience was probably decisive.
Churches? Churches were in part, a mere reflection of these geographical realities. "Geography is destiny," as someone (Bismark?) said.
To be sure though, while the East/West barrior is to some extent natural, there have always been good reasons for trying to break down these natural barriors. Because human cultures are territorical, local, and provincial enough, already. And wose, out of that provinciality and territorialism, come cultural differences - and wars. If too firm a line is increasingly drawn between East and West, problems could result.
How do we fix that? East/West conflict (including conflict between Western and Eastern church?). For some time, the expansion of Greek culture, East and West, by Alexander the Great, helped produce a buffer zone of international culture. But probably wars are not so useful in this way any more. Therefore?
Probably today, international media culture is the best leavening agent, to prevent areas from becoming too singular and divorced from the larger human community. Everybody watches TV, and wants a washing machine; and a kind of international culture forms, thereby. One might regret the internationalization/homogenIzation of culture by this means. But with luck and considering other factors, fewer cultural differences, should also mean more international unity and cooperation.
I've been involved with Eastern Catholic ecumenical relations since I joined the Church in 1996. In that time, I have had the opportunity to meet with representatives of all different Churches on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox divide, and I have devoted considerable time to the study of the history of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.
The Malabarese Church in Kerala were an ancient and thriving Christian community dating to the first century AD, when the Portuguese showed up in 1498, and almost immediately began interfering in the affairs of the local Christians, and, with the assistance of Portuguese missionaries, suppressing the indigenous Church and supplanting it with Roman Catholicism--to the point of accusing the local Christians of heresy and schism. The Portuguese Jesuits erected a Latin diocese in Goa, and attempted forcibly to convert the Malabarese to the Latin Church. The Synod of Diamper, in 1599, appointed a Latin bishop to oversee the Malabarese Church, effectively turning it into a Portuguese-administered diocese of the Latin Church. The situation became so bad that the majority of the local Christians and their remaining clergy rebelled in 1653, taking what is called the Coonan Cross Oath not to obey Jesuit bishops.
In 1665, the Propaganda Fidei sent Carmelite missionaries to deal with the leaders of the rebellion. By taking a more tolerant approach to liturgical practices, they were able to win back 84 of 116 parishes to formal communion with Rome. But the remaining 32, under the Archdeacon Mar Thomas I, entered into communion with the Syrian Orthodox Church under Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel (who also arrived in 1665). Though the Syrian Orthodox Church employed the West Syrian rite, and was nominally "monophysite", the nominally "nestorian" Christians under Mar Thoma had no problems in switching their allegience, forming in the process the Syro-Malankarese Orthodox Church.
The Syro-Malabarese remained under Latin hierarchs until the end of the 18th century, when indigenous priests were sent to Rome, trained at Roman theological colleges, and sent back to India. Naturally--inevitably--these latinized bishops began the latinization of the Syro-Malabarese Church, a process that is now so far advanced that even when directed by the Holy See to restore the fullness of their authentic Tradition, this Church persists in maintaining its heavily latinized liturgy and spirituality.
So, what were the fruits of the Latin Church's intervention in the affairs of the Syro-Malabar Christians? Contrary to the initial post by Anonymous, the Latins were not greeted with open arms. They did not rush to restore communion with Rome, nor did they foreswear their "errors" (whatever those might have been). Instead, they found their legitimate Tradition suppressed by Latin missionaries, their bishops deposed and replaced by Portuguese prelates who forcibly attempted to convert them to the Latin Church.
This resulted in schism within this ancient Church, one which persists to this day. One does not heal division by fostering more division, which is why "uniatism" has been renounced by the Catholc Church (cf. the Balamand Statement) both as a process of reunion and as a model for the Church. Beyond that, and again, as is all too common among the Eastern Churches that entered into communion with Rome, the Syro-Malabarese Catholics found their legitimate spiritual patrimony corrupted and diluted to the point they do not even know what it is.
As regards the attitude of Latin bishops in India to their Syro-Malabarese brethren, the situation is not unlike that which used to pertain between the Latin bishops and their Greek Catholic brethren here in the United States: unable to have us suppressed entirely, they worked assiduously to ensure that we remained ethnic Churches, geographically constrained and effectively blocked from evangelization of the wider population. In India, the Latin bishops resist all efforts of the Syro-Malabarese Catholic Church (and the Syro-Malankarese Catholic Church, yet another example of uniatism being used to "cure schism through schism) to establish parishes and diocese outside of Kerala; and Malabarese parishes and missions are discouraged from preaching to the Indian population outside of Kerala on the assumption that Kerala is Malabarese territory, but the rest of the Subcontinent is Latin missionary territory.
These are just facts, and if the facts are not civil, well, it might be the history of uniatism isn't very civil at all. As an Eastern Catholic, I live with its consequences every day. I have spoken with many Syro-Malabarese clergy and laymen over the past decade and a half, and I have read the books and articles they have written about their situation. I have said what I have to say. If others find it unpalatable, that is unfortunate, but the truth is what it is.
The Church of the East does not celebrate "Mass", it celebrates the Qurbono of Addai and Mari, perhaps the oldest Eucharistic liturgy still in regular use--older than the Byzantine rite, older than the Roman rite, older even than the Coptic rite; so old, it preserves usages that have disappeared from later liturgies. Having had the privilege of serving at the altar for a Qurbono, I can tell you it was an immensely moving experience, almost eerie in the way it captured the feeling of the liturgy of the early Church.
It is easy for someone who sits in the comfort of his secure American living room to criticize the Assyrians for canceling the Qurbono of the Nativity. After all, nobody is going to blow up a truck full of nail-jacketed explosives outside your church. I am most certain that the Assyrian hierarchs and the faithful did not make this decision lightly, nor did they do so out of cowardice, but out of concern for innocent life. A bomb blowing up in or outside a church on Nativity might kill a few score more of Iraq's vanishing Christians; it would also have killed dozens of non-Christians who just happened to be passing by at the time.
I mean, if Christianity fails or falls, the entire world might go with it into a kind of post-historical abyss.
I can't help being being vague; the world — time and space — ain't what it used to be.
Thank you very much for the wonderful article. I'm a proud Christian who belongs to the Assyrian Church of the East. All of your Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq and all of the Middle East pray along with you and thank you for your prayers for their safety and survival.
The Christian world truly needs to openly and forcefully address the Christians situation in the Middle East, not just by words but backed with actions. Otherwise, what's happening today there WILL expand to the western world if nothing is done about it.
You said, “The Assyrians have been a people oppressed by foreign powers for over a millennium, I don't see them benefitting too much from that these days.”
You don’t see them benefitting because you’re looking in the wrong places. I’m not being “apolitical”; I’m looking at the larger perspective. The fates of nations and of particular institutions don’t matter in any ultimate sense. Rome was once on the margins, and it will be again. We do what we can to make our nations and church institutions thrive, but we should do so knowing these things too are vanity.
---
Stuart,
You said, “These are just facts, and if the facts are not civil, well, it might be the history of uniatism isn't very civil at all. … I have said what I have to say. If others find it unpalatable, that is unfortunate, but the truth is what it is.”
It is not your “facts” or their “unpalatableness.” It is your attitude. This idea that you personally are so very long suffering and that the readers of the comments are insufferably ignorant. I’m sure you’ve been told this before, so don’t act surprised. Just do a little self-reflection. It’s not all about you or your sympathy for your brethren. You belong to a minority faith from a part of the world that Americans don’t know much about. It’s not the majority’s fault that you’re in the minority, so get over it. Do what you can to educate those who know little, but don't kick them because they can't see the light switch in the dark.
---
Pete,
There is no “real fight,” or at least, the fight today isn’t any different than it was in any day or will be at some later time. Israel waited for centuries for its enemies to be defeated, and it was surprised by Christ instead, a very different messiah than they expected. Our expectations may very well be dashed as well. God’s ways are not our ways, after all, and history has gone in some unusual directions.
Some of these women were Assyrians---I remember that one was very fair, with blue eyes and blonde hair, which she said was not uncommon among Assyrians. They were well-educated, and were employed in professional jobs. Most were still unmarried and seemed to be enjoying their 20s. I don't know why they went to St. Raphael's instead of one of the Assyrian churches. I remember that they liked the priest---a brave, overworked, multilingual Lebanese man who put up with a lot of harassment from the Iraqi government. He'd say seven masses, in seven languages, one right after the other. Sunday was a work day there (as in most Moslem countries), but the government only allowed Christian services on Sundays, starting after 4 PM. I'd see my Iraqi friends at the French mass.
I frequently find myself thinking about these friends.
http://berchmans.tripod.com/catholic.html - articles by a priest of the SyroMalabar Church .
He quotes Pope John Paul II - " It is to the glory of this Church that it has never broken communion with Rome .."
Another perspective on the Synod of Diamper , from a Latin Church authority -
http://www.latinarchdiocesetrivandrum.org/blog/2010/02/23/history-of-latin-catholics-in-kerala-bishop-rt-rev-dr-selvister-punnumuthan/
The defects he mentions among the faithful were very likely to have the been also contributing reasons for the unpleasantness that ensued ; the undue attraction towards the major hindu culture having been challenges , esp. the reluctance to have the lower castes incorporated into Church life !
http://kunjethy.tripod.com/indiajesuits/ -
above , from a well known author , on Jesuits in India , on the great missionary work of St.Francis Xavior who esp. focused on the neglected groups .
True, in zeal and misunderstandings , mistakes would have been made !
Two notable dates stand out - Vasco De Gama was blessed to find the route to India soon after Pope Alexander had given Portugal the Padroado role for Indian Mission ; this happens right before the Moghul invasion of india ; Church in Kerala too was to face the threat years later !
Seems Our Lady of Fatima ( who was to appear under that title 320 years later , in Portugal ! ) always had a special predilection for these children of St.Thomas ; years later , it would be on The Feast Of Assumption that India gets Independance !
And this year , on May I , 2011, on Mercy Sunday , The Church of the Twin
( St.Thomas ) , The Thomas Church would have triple reasons to celebrate - as Feast of St.Thomas , Mercy Sunday and Beatification of Pope John Paul II !
In The Feast of Mercy , our Lord asks us to bring all - the sinner , the priest , the lukewarm , the nonbeliever, the separated - to Him ..
Nine difft groups ..and may be He has a chuckle to help us to see that when we do , that is also possibly the nine difft areas in each of us too !
May His mercy be with us all , with all the Churches , esp. those who are struggling ,giving us hope and courage !
Your pie is in the sky, while we're talking about real people suffering and their whole communities being extinguished. It's easy for to talk like that from the comforts of your American LA-Z boy.
Let us trust that The Holy Spirit that has guided us and the leaders of The Church would continue to do so ...freeing from destructive attachments, undue pride or contempt , sending help as needed and the humility to accept same when needed , not making idols of past mistakes of any one , grateful for the patrimony that has been handed over and mindful of the responsibilities , yet wise and free enough not to lord it over ...
Choosing to serve as needed - for our Lord has said that that too is a privilege ..and let those who have eyes to see and ears to hear , to discern what The Spirit is saying ..
Those divisions were exploited by secular rulers down to the recent past. Saddam Hussein, for instance, showed special favor for the Chaldean Catholics (not for nothing was Tariq Aziz made foreign minister), elevating them from among other minority groups, thereby making them entirely dependent upon Saddam for their survival. This incurred the resentment not only of Shi'ites, Kurds and other oppressed Muslims, but less favored Christian communities (such as the Assyrians and the Syrian Orthodox).
To its credit, the Holy See has taken steps to rectify the damage it has done. Not only does it denounce all violence against Christians in Iraq, regardless of confession, it has been working assiduously to heal the division between the Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church, not to mention the Catholic Church as a whole.
Thus, the Church of Rome has signed a Agreed Christological Statement with the Church of the East that acknowledges the orthodoxy of Assyrian Christology, without requiring the Church of the East to subscribe to the specific formulae of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (and subsequent Ecumenical Councils); while the Church of the East, for its part, acknowledges the orthodoxy of Chalcedonian Christology.
Beyond that, for nearly a decade the Catholic Church has allowed formal "communicatio in sacris" between Chaldean Catholics and the Church of the East. Under this agreement, the laity of each Church can receive the Eucharist and other sacraments in the other Church without prejudice; only lack of concelebration by the clergy separates this from formal ecclesial communion.
As part of this agreement, the Church of Rome acknowledged the validity of the ancient Qurbono of Addai and Mari as celebrated by the Assyrian Church, even though this most ancient of ancient liturgies lacks an explicit "Institution Narrative". In so doing, the Catholic Church recognized that the entire anaphora (Eucharistic prayer) is a single, unfolding consecratory act, in which the words of institution are implicit throughout. It thus reversed an action it had taken upon the establishment of the Chaldean Catholic Church of inserting those words where they had never existed, showing due respect for the diversity of Tradition within all the Apostolic Churches, a respect without which there can be no true unity of faith and communion in the Holy Spirit.
Should the Pope apologize to the Eastern Christians?
He already has. So did his predecessor. What we, as Eastern Christians in communion with Rome would like is the ecumenical principles enunciated to the Orthodox Churches to be applied to us; i.e., no subordination or assimilation, but true communion in the Holy Spirit. One good place to start would be recognition of universal jurisdiction for the ancient patriarchates over all their faithful, regardless of where located. At present, patriarchal jurisdiction applies only within the "ancient homelands" of those Churches. Only there are bishops elected by the patriarchal synod. Elsewhere, bishops of the various Eastern Catholic Churches are appointed directly by the Bishop of Rome. On the other hand, Eastern Catholic patriarchs have no say over the appointment of Latin bishops whose dioceses exist within the "ancient homelands".
Dropping certain "special norms" over our practices, such as the ordination of married men to the presbyterate, would go a long way towards salving hurt feelings and healing distrust among the Orthodox. While in practice we have ignored these "special norms" and have been ordaining married men here for close to two decades, they are still on the books. Allowing the Eastern Catholic Churches themselves to compile their own Code of Canons, instead of imposing a lightly redacted form of the Roman Codex Canonorum would also be a sign of respect for our legitimate Tradition.
You said, “Your pie is in the sky, while we're talking about real people suffering and their whole communities being extinguished.”
Ok. So if you don’t think God is taking care of them, what are you doing in his absence?
---
Stuart,
You said, “Beyond that, for nearly a decade the Catholic Church has allowed formal "communicatio in sacris" between Chaldean Catholics and the Church of the East. Under this agreement, the laity of each Church can receive the Eucharist and other sacraments in the other Church without prejudice; only lack of concelebration by the clergy separates this from formal ecclesial communion…. It thus reversed an action it had taken upon the establishment of the Chaldean Catholic Church of inserting those words where they had never existed, showing due respect for the diversity of Tradition within all the Apostolic Churches, a respect without which there can be no true unity of faith and communion in the Holy Spirit.”
I’m cheered by the story you tell in your last post about the efforts Rome has made in respecting the traditions of the East while embracing their unity of faith. I look forward to seeing something similar happening between Protestant and Catholic Churches, though I’m not sure what timeline I should entertain—one, five, or fifteen centuries!
Moffett also notes the heroic efforts of Dominican and Franciscan missionaries of the High Middle Ages to evangelize the Chinese and the Mongols, culminating in the establishment of a Western Patriarchate in Peking led by John of Montecorvino.
Michael,
Much as I look forward to the day that all shall be one, as Christ and the Father are One, the divisions between the Church of Rome and the various Protestant denominations are of a different order than those separating the Church of Rome and the other Apostolic Churches. The latter have maintained valid ecclesial orders with apostolic succession, have valid sacraments, and have all maintained a Tradition they can trace back through time to the Apostles from whom they received it. All of the Protestant denominations have diverged from the Tradition to varying degrees, which is why the Church of Rome refers to them not as "Churches" (big C) but as "ecclesial communities". Recognizing that all those who are baptized are mystically united to the Catholic Church, it is still a sad fact that the distance between Protestants and Catholics--or Protestants and the Orthodox--is far greater than that which separates Roman Catholics from the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental alike) or the Church of the East, for that matter.
At this time, THE magisterial treatment of the Church of the East is "The Church of the East: A Concise History", by Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar Winkler (Routledge) 2003. Admittedly, the $180 price tag for the hardcover is daunting, but if you can find one, there is a paperback edition for about $40.
"persecutions in the East started only with the acceptance of Christianity by Constantine in the West"
Not really true. Christian communities were running afoul of the Zoroastrian Persians back in the third century, and perhaps earlier--as were the Armenians, whose conversion in 301 predates even Constantine's Edict of Toleration by a dozen years, and Theodosius the Great's establishment of Christianity as the state religion within the Empire by almost a century.
In any case, after the Assyrian Church rejected the Council of Ephesus (431), and so-called "Nestorian" Christianity was suppressed within the bounds of the Roman Empire, the Sassanid Persians became patrons and protectors of the Church of the East, which they saw as a bastion against Roman encroachment.
As for the possibility of Latin missionaries being able to effect a large scale conversion of China in the 16th-17th centuries, that's in the realm of fantasy. The refusal of the Holy See to make reasonable accommodations to the faith in the name of "inculturation" made the effort doomed from the start. In contrast, by the beginning of the 13th century, the Church of the East had established something like eighty dioceses within China, having first reached China before the 7th century, according to the so-called Nestorius Stela. When Western Christianity did finally come to China, it did so only in the wake of armed colonizers--whether Catholic and Portuguese, or Protestant and English, and it remained just a fringe movement in areas under direct or indirect Western control. In comparison, the Church of the East's evangelization of China, even though it eventually failed due to massive geo-political upheavals, looks all the more impressive: the Assyrian missionaries had nothing going for them except the faith they promoted.
It’s that notion of “validity” that makes the date closer to fifteen centuries than one. It’s not as if Protestant traditions are sui generis. Most Protestant traditions, especially in the mainline churches, trace their way back to the apostles as well, and most of the debates that gave rise to the various Protestant churches have been present throughout the history of Christianity. The debates just spun out of the control of the Catholic hierarchy, and losing that control has made Catholicism more thoughtful and attentive as well as more defensive.
Protestantism has a bracing appreciation for core matters of faith over devotional and ecclesiastical epiphenomena, which is why we tend to be more ecumenically minded and humble about the importance of particular practices. In the meantime, much of what seems traditional about Catholic and Orthodox practice is either comparatively recent or much elaborated upon since the days of the apostles. It’s easy to confuse those elaborations with the core of the gospel that we all try to be true to.
The differences among Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox only become matters of what you call “belonging to a different order” if we focus on some things rather than others. The notion that Protestant churches are merely “ecclesial communities” belongs in history’s dustbin along with old-style Protestant denunciations of the whore of Babylon. Still, the notion that we are ecclesial communities is a step up from what we used to be called, so that’s progress!
Are you suggesting the Pope become a "first among equals", as the Patriarch of Constantinople is considered among the Eastern Orthodox? Should the notion of papal infallibilty be rejected? Wouldn't the result be a Catholic Church divided among ethnic and national lines, as is the case in Orthodoxy?
Papal infallibility seems to me an innovation that has no grounding in the history of the Church and which is unnecessary in any case. Personally, I consider the whole issue moot, because it is highly unlikely, given the "ecclesiology of communion" espoused by the Catholic Church since Vatican II, that any Pope would ever try to exercise that charism again. In fact, it seems to me that, if the Holy See could find a face saving way of repealing Pastor Aeternus, it would (just as, e.g., Pope Pius XII in 1958 quietly repudiated the doctrine of the temporal supremacy of the Pope, which had been upheld as dogma for centuries). It may not be necessary to repudiate papal infallibility, as it could be "clarified" in a manner that makes it clear that the conditions for its use could never be satisfied in reality.
Without papal supremacy, without infallibility (which are really two different things), there would still be Papal primacy. The fragmentation of the Orthodox Church that you mention is largely the result of the absence of an effective primacy at the universal level, which in turn was caused by (in order): the breaking of communion between Rome and Constantinople; the fall of the Byzantine Empire; the Turkish captivity of the Byzantine Church; and the literal "balkanization" of Eastern Europe.
It is quite heartening to note that an increasing number of prominent Orthodox bishops and theologians recognize the need for universal primacy--even while they disagree with the way such primacy is currently defined and exercised by Rome. It is widely recognized that the only nexus for such a primacy is the Church of Rome, and if both sides could agree on the manner in which primacy is defined and exercised, restoration of communion would easily be accomplished, as no other substantive issues remain.
The Ravenna Statement of the Joint Orthodox-Catholic International Theological Commission made considerable progress in that direction, recognizing the need to hold primacy and conciliarity in dynamic tension with each other. One formula that many have found useful is Canon of the Holy Apostles No. 34 (4th century): "Let [all the bishops] recognize the one who is first among them, and do nothing unusual without his consent; but let he who is first do nothing extraordinary without the advice and consent of all, so that unanimity in the Holy Spirit may prevail for the greater glory of the Holy Trinity".
There is also another book on Ricci which I believe is titled 'The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci'.
But why are you Greek Catholic and I Protestant ?
If memory serves, you said in another comment that you came to Catholicism through reading and the experience of going to a Catholic service. Your conversion was aesthetic, feeling the power and the beauty of something ancient and holy. Those are good reasons.
I came to Protestantism for different reasons. Raised Roman Catholic, I had plenty of great aesthetic, devotional, intellectual, and service experiences, but I only experienced the feeling of home when I entered a United Methodist congregation that acted like a community. I had experienced that in my college Catholic center but never in an adult congregation. It’s been marvelous to live in a committed, active congregation.
Compared to the gospel values shared between Roman Catholicism and United Methodism, the real differences in sacraments, liturgy, devotion, leadership, and ecclesiastical structures are minor and ultimately inconsequential. Day in and day out, I don’t feel great differences between Roman Catholicism and United Methodism.
I go to Catholic mass whenever family is in town, and it is like stepping into an old shoe, comfortable and comforting, but worn in the sole. I know that I can only go the distance in my new hiking boots. I’m only made sad when my family refuses to take communion at my church. The United Methodist church invites them to take communion, but Catholicism forbids it, preventing unity at the very meal in which we become one with Christ.
Ultimately, we fall in love in ways that go far past conscious choice, you with Greek Catholicism and me with United Methodism. The traditions make a difference, it’s where we live, but the gospel is all that ultimately counts. Traditions are important, but anything that keeps Christians out of fellowship is wrong.
I think some of your comments about the notion of first among equals illustrate the problem. There is no “face saving way” of retracting papal infallibility. Human pride and institutional forces are at work in pushing certain doctrines and practices. There is no face saving way either of recognizing that apostolic succession might mean more than the literal hands of bishops so that United Methodist ministers ordained by UMC bishops who can trace their ordination back to ordained Anglicans also succeed the apostles. Nor is there any face saving way for either Protestant or Catholics to recognize that much of the division around the Eucharist involves differences in wording not too far removed from the controversy over the filioque clause that has kept East and West apart.
The conciliar model you promote has been promoted off and on through the ages, including during the lead up to the Reformation. Had it been in place at that time, and if we had had better leaders in the papacy as well as in Germany and England, then the history of Christianity would have taken a different, more unified turn.
Without papal supremacy, without infallibility (which are really two different things), there would still be Papal primacy. The fragmentation of the Orthodox Church that you mention is largely the result of the absence of an effective primacy at the universal level, which in turn was caused by (in order): the breaking of communion between Rome and Constantinople; the fall of the Byzantine Empire; the Turkish captivity of the Byzantine Church; and the literal "balkanization" of Eastern Europe.I've argued the first part as well and hope for it. The second part is a new idea to me, but this Protestant for one would be open to acknowledging a "universal primacy" for the bishop of Rome, if papal infallibility--which I consider to be a mistaken response to the Western Enlightenment that adopted its arrogant assumptions--were reconsidered.
"The Lord of History is in charge and Divine Providence will in the end found to be perfect. I have no doubt that Islam will be defeated and tens of millions of Muslims will find Christ in his United Church."
Chiliasm is more apropos of Zoroastrianism than Christianity. The strange fire that these pre and post-millennialism doctrines produce are a good reason for keeping Protestantism at arm's length. One of the chief difficulties with the statement above is that it perpetually predicts the immediacy of God's reign in history together with a abortion of stewardship of both the lives of the flock and of creation as a whole as well as making man effectively the instrument of the establishment of this kingdom on earth ... such as precipitating "final war" in Palestine together with the annihilation of most of the people of that region. I believe it also confuses natural good within creation with God's agency and thus ultimately the responsibility for our own moral and political failures fall back on God when the expectation is postponed else comes in a form one is unprepared to accept (such as Jesus arriving as Messiah yet rejected by Judaism). So at the same time, it both puts the onus for the work that only can be established by sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit on man and man's political means for it's accomplishment upon man rather than God but also holds God responsible for our failure to do so.
This has profound consequences for our understanding of God's Providence and for our understanding of escatology. First, it confuses what St. Paul calls "this world" with God's Kingdom. Although this world is shot through with the Kingdom of God, that is not yet. It has come close to us today but we are neither perfected nor has the final Parousia been completed ... nor will it be in the time of this world. This is the world where we are created by God's hand. This is the world where our Lord was incarnated for our sakes. At bottom, this world is sacramental ... instrument for God rather than against Him. But this life remains a wounded and mortal life ... we catch mortality from the ancestral curse of the Fall.
St. John tells us clearly that if we say we have no sin, we make God a liar (bad plan). Since the fruit of sin is death, we must understand that we are going to die ... and we must understand that death has no place in the Kingdom of God. We are a pilgrim Church. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ gathers us into His Body by the work of the Spirit within us and among us and that sanctifying work reaches it's conclusion not in this world but in the next. There may be saints who are perfected in the Orthodox sense of theosis in this life but they will die and be raised on the Last Day. God's Providence gathers the threads of this life that are given to Him and weaves them into the tapestry of the world to come. All of history tells us of the war between the mystery of evil and God's children. It is the wicked who have shown themselves forth as great rulers while the humble of heart have triumphed even as our Lord shows forth victory in his ultimate humility, laid in a tomb. The dream of Nebuchadnezzar is as nothing.
I was shocked that no one mentioned the joint statement issues in 1994 between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of the East essentially confessing to faith in the same Christology and admitting that the anathemas and condemnations of the past were due largely to misunderstandings and no real defective dogmas.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html
Additionally, members of the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East are officially welcome and allowed to partake of the Eucharist in each other's churches when the need arises.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html
Although full communion has yet to be established, centuries of distrust, animosity and misrepresentation has seemingly come to an end – for this we can in fact praise God. Heresies do not endure and the doctrines Church of the East clearly don't constitute heresy.
We can today thank the Lord the Gospel was being preached to the ends of the earth while much of the Church was unaware. Millions confessed faith and were baptized throughout Asia. May their stories be told to renew our commitment to the evangelization of all non-Christian religions.
Rev. David John
Diocese of St. Patrick, Missionary Priest to Arabian Peninsula


