• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

The Assyrian Church of the East

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,211
Reaction score
29
Points
48
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Severian said:
^'Qnome' is a cognate with the Arabic 'iqnoom', actually. They both mean 'hypostasis'. :)
But  Assyrians do not use/mean hypostasis in the same way as Miaphysites and Chalcedonians which was the problem in the first place.

"In the Church of the East there is no more credible source for understanding the Christology of the "Nestorians" than Babai the Great's Book of the Union. In it we get a glimpse into the mind of one of the prominent defenders of Antiochene thought in the East and one who lived at the time the Church there officially adopted "Nestorian" terminology. It is important to stress that this terminology was not new to the Church, but had been the common currency of theological and Christological discourse among Syriac-speaking Christians in the East for generations. It should not be abstracted from its cultural environment, nor should the images and impressions it evoked among those who employed it (and their hearers) in its unique linguistic setting be ignored and the whole of it forced to fit exactly into a Byzantine (or modern western) mold. It is the language of a distinct Christian culture, rich in the traditions of those who brought Christianity to the Eastern empire from the "West". To reach a "Chalcedonian" objective of one subject "person" in two uncompromised substantive "natures", the dyophysites felt required to affirm the hypostatic integrity of each nature. Babai, being one of those who participated in the "debate" of 612, felt the term qnoma could not be dispensed with in addressing the threat posed by monophysism to the essential integrity of Christ's humanity and divinity. It is instructive to know what he himself meant by this term which he employed.

In his Fourth Memra (seventeenth chapter) Babai defines his terms for us. First let us consider his definition of qnoma/hypostasis:

"A singular essence is called a `qnoma'. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one [numerically] among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome [only] by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its `pars\opa'. With rational creatures this [uniqueness] may consist of various [external and internal] accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures [as also with the rational] the combination of various contrasting features. [Through the pars\opa we distinguish that] Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole [but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.]."

Here Babai sets forth his understanding of qnoma as being a representative exemplar of a general species. It is the essence of a given nature in concrete, realized form. It is the essential substratum upon which a pars\opa is based. It is nature undifferentiated in any way from exemplary qnome of the same nature except for number, but differentiated both in number and essence from exemplary qnome of other natures. This substratum of nature is further individualized only by the addition of accidents, phenomena which are not of the essence of a given nature, but which make it possible to distinguish one qnoma from another. Nature is general and descriptive: qnoma is specific and exemplary. When Babai speaks of Christ as "God and man", he insists on specificity: a divine qnoma (not the Holy Trinity) and a human qnoma (not mankind in general).

On the subject of pars\opa Babai has this to say:

"Again, `pars\opa' is the collective characteristics of a qnoma which distinguish it from other [qnome of the same species]. The qnoma of Paul is not that of Peter, even though the nature and qnoma [of both of them] is the same. Each of them possesses a body and soul and is living, rational, and fleshly [that is, they are each a hypostatized nature], yet through their pars\ope they are distinguished from one another by that which is unique to each of them-stature, for instance, or form, or temperament, or wisdom, or authority, or fatherhood, or sonship, or masculinity, or femininity, or in whatever way. A unique characteristic distinguishes and indicates that this [man] is not that [man], and that [one] is not this [one], even if this and that are of the same nature. Because of the unique property [or pars\opa] which a certain qnoma possesses, one [qnoma] is not the other one."

Here that which is not of the essence of an exemplary nature but a property possessed by it which distinguishes it from others of its kind, in combination with other such characteristics, comprises the pars\opa of a given nature. Here Paul becomes Paul and not just "man" and is distinguished from Peter, whose qnoma does not otherwise differ from Paul's except in numerical distinction. Paul not only looks different from Peter (hair color, height, weight, complexion, etc.) but acts differently, reflecting underlying differences in abilities, talents, interests, etc.-the characteristics of his pars\opa. Paul becomes a subject of interest on his own, not just as a specimen of "manhood". And the integrity of his identity is bound up in the fact that his pars\opa is uniquely his and not another's, whereas the integrity of his qnoma lies in its faithful reflection, in exemplary form, of the exact nature of any other ordinary man."

http://web.archive.org/web/200012031418/http://www.cired.org/east/nest.html

 

CoptoGeek

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
2
Points
0
From S. Brock's paper I previously posted:

2. Even where the three Greek terms (or their Syriac equivalents) are used, different people understood them in different ways. Thus, for example, to the Church of the East, the term kyana, or 'nature' (corresponding to Greek physis), was understood as being close in meaning to ousia, or 'essence'. 6 To the Henophysites, however, physis was regarded as being closer in meaning to hypostasis. This difference of understanding of course had important implications for the way in which the terms were used in Christological statements.

3. Related to this second point is a third. The Greek term hypostasis is represented in Syriac by the word qnoma, which has a much wider range of meanings than the Greek has. When the Church of the East uses qnoma in connection with 'nature' it usually speaks of 'the two natures and their qnomas\ where qnoma means something like 'individual manifestation': a qnoma is an individual instance or example of a kyana (which is understood as always abstract), but this individual manifestation is not necessarily a self-existent instance of a kyana. Thus, when the Church of the East speaks of two gnome in the incarnate Christ, this does not have the same sense as two hypostaseis, where hypostasis does have the sense of self-existence. Unfortunately some European translators have confused the issue even more by perniciously rendering qnoma as 'person', as if the underlying term was parsopa (i.e. Greek prosopori), thus implying that the Church of the East believed that there were two persons in Christ, in other words the classic definition of 'Nestorianism'. (Whether or not Nestorius actually taught this, however, is disputed, and even if he did, then what he really meant by this terminology is far from clear).
 

Severian

Taxiarches
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Website
www.lsocs.co.uk
Deacon Lance said:
But Assyrians do not use/mean hypostasis in the same way as Miaphysites and Chalcedonians which was the problem in the first place.
I am willing to give the Assyrians the benefit of the doubt and agree that they do not necessarily use the word 'hypostasis' the way the Deutero-Constantinopolitan Chalcedonians do, I was simply translating the word. In any case, even St. Severus of Antioch describes Christ humanity as "hypostatic" or "individually designated", but he does not understand the 'hypostasis' the way Chalcedonians do, either. In fact, I almost want to say that the Assyrians understand the word "qnome" in a way similar way to St. Severus.

But thank you for the interesting post, Dcn. Lance. :)
 

Assyrian Lector

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wow guys thanks so much for the warm welcome I am sincerely choked up! I love you all and will answer your questions when I have a spare moment. I work full time, serve the Church and am studying for a degree and to add to that I have a wife who loves spending time with me! :) hopefully I get some  time in the next few days.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
NJ
Severian said:
Deacon Lance said:
But Assyrians do not use/mean hypostasis in the same way as Miaphysites and Chalcedonians which was the problem in the first place.
I am willing to give the Assyrians the benefit of the doubt and agree that they do not necessarily use the word 'hypostasis' the way the Deutero-Constantinopolitan Chalcedonians do, I was simply translating the word. In any case, even St. Severus of Antioch describes Christ humanity as "hypostatic" or "individually designated", but he does not understand the 'hypostasis' the way Chalcedonians do, either. In fact, I almost want to say that the Assyrians understand the word "qnome" in a way similar way to St. Severus.

But thank you for the interesting post, Dcn. Lance. :)
Yes, St. Severus does acknowledge that hypostasis does not mean person, even though some may have used it to mean prosopon.  However, he does also give the possibility of hypostasis being a prosopon on basis of the concrete existence of the whole, whether compound or simple hypostasis.  So to St. Severus Christ was a compound hypostasis.  One could say that in fact, when it came to the term "hypostasis", St. Severus seemed to be able to unite the prosopon party (those who say hypostasis is prosopon) with that of the qnome party (those who say hypostasis is an individuated existence), so as to show the complications of the term, used as an existence of an essence, while having it also become understood as the way in which the whole of the person exists.  It is why St. Severus while acknowledging that each nature of Christ is hypostatic (that is they really each exist), there is still one hypostasis (both natures are a unit together).
 

Severian

Taxiarches
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Website
www.lsocs.co.uk
^Yes, good post. I think the main problem in Assyrian theology is that they are not willing to say that the Divine Hypostasis suffered, and they still confess an ontological duality/separation within the hypostases of Christ. So, even if they do not confess "two persons" in Christ, if they truly believe in two distinctly acting units within his person, that is still the logical corollary their theology leads to.
 

Severian

Taxiarches
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Website
www.lsocs.co.uk
Assyrian Lector said:
Wow guys thanks so much for the warm welcome I am sincerely choked up! I love you all and will answer your questions when I have a spare moment. I work full time, serve the Church and am studying for a degree and to add to that I have a wife who loves spending time with me! :) hopefully I get some  time in the next few days.
May the Lord continue to bless you! :)
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,839
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
If the personal/specific Kyana to which the Son is united is called "Jesus Christ" or "a man" then it is indeed Crypto-Nestorianism.

If by human Kyana you mean the human characteristics one might contemplate a specific human being having, then sure.
 

Shanghaiski

Merarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,005
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Severian said:
Deacon Lance said:
But Assyrians do not use/mean hypostasis in the same way as Miaphysites and Chalcedonians which was the problem in the first place.
I am willing to give the Assyrians the benefit of the doubt and agree that they do not necessarily use the word 'hypostasis' the way the Deutero-Constantinopolitan Chalcedonians do, I was simply translating the word. In any case, even St. Severus of Antioch describes Christ humanity as "hypostatic" or "individually designated", but he does not understand the 'hypostasis' the way Chalcedonians do, either. In fact, I almost want to say that the Assyrians understand the word "qnome" in a way similar way to St. Severus.

But thank you for the interesting post, Dcn. Lance. :)
And it just got colder in hell, but that's okay, because all of it is now breaking loose...
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
The posts Rafa999 asked to be submitted on his behalf have been removed from this thread. Please do not submit anything more that he requests be submitted. He is muted, which means he is also not permitted to have anything submitted through the back door of other posters.
 

Assyrian Lector

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi All,

I am so sorry for not replying in a timely manner, my life is so hectic due to my many commitments, so it is difficult to find a spare moment to provide substantive answers to your questions. I will be taking a break from Uni starting in March and God willing I will post answers to your questions and fellowship with you all during my time off.

I also need to research our own theology concerning Christ's natures and from what I do know I honestly believe there is not much difference in what we all affirm. I believe that semantics have a lot to do with the confusion.

I would do anything to see us unite as one Church in Christ; I would prefer it over winning any amount of money through a lottery or anything else that the world would offer me. I would honestly cry tears of joy and would mean more to me than words could describe.

God willing, through Christ all things can be accomplished.

May the prayers of the Theotokos be with you all.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,211
Reaction score
29
Points
48
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Severian said:
^Yes, good post. I think the main problem in Assyrian theology is that they are not willing to say that the Divine Hypostasis suffered, and they still confess an ontological duality/separation within the hypostases of Christ. So, even if they do not confess "two persons" in Christ, if they truly believe in two distinctly acting units within his person, that is still the logical corollary their theology leads to.
But Chalcedonians refuse to say the Divine Nature (Physis) suffered.  It cannot, it is impassible.  The Divine Person Jesus Christ suffered through his human nature.
 

Severian

Taxiarches
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Website
www.lsocs.co.uk
Deacon Lance said:
Severian said:
^Yes, good post. I think the main problem in Assyrian theology is that they are not willing to say that the Divine Hypostasis suffered, and they still confess an ontological duality/separation within the hypostases of Christ. So, even if they do not confess "two persons" in Christ, if they truly believe in two distinctly acting units within his person, that is still the logical corollary their theology leads to.
But Chalcedonians refuse to say the Divine Nature (Physis) suffered.  It cannot, it is impassible.  The Divine Person Jesus Christ suffered through his human nature.
Which is basically what I just said. The problem is the hesitance of the Assyrians to confess that "the Word suffered in the flesh".
 

cyro

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Zgorzelec
I don't want to start a new thread, so I decided to ask it here.

I'm interested in the origin of The Assyrian Church of East, but from their perspective.

I found this information: It is an Apostolic church, established by the apostles St Thomas, St Thaddeus, and St Bartholomew. St Peter, the chief of the apostles added his blessing to the Church of the East at the time of his visit to the see at Babylon, in the earliest days of the church: "... The chosen church which is at Babylon, and Mark, my son, salute you ... greet one another with a holy kiss ..." ( I Peter 5:13-14).

http://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches/regions/north-america/united-states-of-america/holy-apostolic-catholic-assyrian-church-of-the-east.html

Do Assrians believe that Peter was literally in Babilon, and it didn't mean he was actualy in Rome?
 

JamesRottnek

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Mesa, AZ
cyro said:
I don't want to start a new thread, so I decided to ask it here.

I'm interested in the origin of The Assyrian Church of East, but from their perspective.

I found this information: It is an Apostolic church, established by the apostles St Thomas, St Thaddeus, and St Bartholomew. St Peter, the chief of the apostles added his blessing to the Church of the East at the time of his visit to the see at Babylon, in the earliest days of the church: "... The chosen church which is at Babylon, and Mark, my son, salute you ... greet one another with a holy kiss ..." ( I Peter 5:13-14).

http://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches/regions/north-america/united-states-of-america/holy-apostolic-catholic-assyrian-church-of-the-east.html

Do Assrians believe that Peter was literally in Babilon, and it didn't mean he was actualy in Rome?
I have read this before, mostly from members of the Assyrian Church (as well as some Protestant writers who are enamored with it), but as far as I know, they are the only ones who have ever claimed as much.
 

Salpy

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
14,498
Reaction score
12
Points
38
I just found out about a new website about the Church of the East:

http://eastmeetseastblog.blogspot.com/
 

walter1234

High Elder
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
944
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Which gospel does Assyrian church of east believe ? Christus victor?satisfaction theory ? Penal substitution?

Does Assyrian church of east  believe heaven and hell ? How does Assyrian church of east understand of hell?
 

IS

High Elder
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
563
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
13
Location
Queensland
JamesRottnek said:
cyro said:
I don't want to start a new thread, so I decided to ask it here.

I'm interested in the origin of The Assyrian Church of East, but from their perspective.

I found this information: It is an Apostolic church, established by the apostles St Thomas, St Thaddeus, and St Bartholomew. St Peter, the chief of the apostles added his blessing to the Church of the East at the time of his visit to the see at Babylon, in the earliest days of the church: "... The chosen church which is at Babylon, and Mark, my son, salute you ... greet one another with a holy kiss ..." ( I Peter 5:13-14).

http://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches/regions/north-america/united-states-of-america/holy-apostolic-catholic-assyrian-church-of-the-east.html

Do Assrians believe that Peter was literally in Babilon, and it didn't mean he was actualy in Rome?
I have read this before, mostly from members of the Assyrian Church (as well as some Protestant writers who are enamored with it), but as far as I know, they are the only ones who have ever claimed as much.
The Coptic Orthodox Church holds that it is a reference to Babylon (the suburb) in Old Cairo; So at the very least it appears as though the location of this "Babylon" is disputed.
 

JamesRottnek

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Mesa, AZ
Didymus said:
JamesRottnek said:
cyro said:
I don't want to start a new thread, so I decided to ask it here.

I'm interested in the origin of The Assyrian Church of East, but from their perspective.

I found this information: It is an Apostolic church, established by the apostles St Thomas, St Thaddeus, and St Bartholomew. St Peter, the chief of the apostles added his blessing to the Church of the East at the time of his visit to the see at Babylon, in the earliest days of the church: "... The chosen church which is at Babylon, and Mark, my son, salute you ... greet one another with a holy kiss ..." ( I Peter 5:13-14).

http://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches/regions/north-america/united-states-of-america/holy-apostolic-catholic-assyrian-church-of-the-east.html

Do Assrians believe that Peter was literally in Babilon, and it didn't mean he was actualy in Rome?
I have read this before, mostly from members of the Assyrian Church (as well as some Protestant writers who are enamored with it), but as far as I know, they are the only ones who have ever claimed as much.
The Coptic Orthodox Church holds that it is a reference to Babylon (the suburb) in Old Cairo; So at the very least it appears as though the location of this "Babylon" is disputed.
Interesting, I was unaware of this.
 

IS

High Elder
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
563
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
13
Location
Queensland
Assyrian Lector said:
I don't ever recall us venerating him or celebrating a feast day etc. I know we label him the bloodless martyr but he is not considered a saint to my knowledge.
Isn't October 25th the day the Church of the East honours Mar Nestorius?
 

IS

High Elder
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
563
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
13
Location
Queensland
Are there currently any Assyrians / members of the Church of the East on here please? Wouldn't mind asking a few questions if this is alright?

Nazarene said:
A diagram should always be accompanied by an explanation of it to put it into perspective IMO, so what do you think when I accompany this:



with this:

“A singular essence is called a ‘qnoma’. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one [numerically] among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome [only] by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its ‘parsopa’. With rational creatures this [uniqueness] may consist of various [external and internal] accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures [as also with the rational] the combination of various contrasting features. [Through the parsopa we distinguish that] Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole [but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.].”—Fourth Memra, Book of the Union, Published by Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Paris, 1915, A. Vaschalde, ed.
This diagram is not about chronology of existance but level of existence - abstract, concrete and material.
Thank you for this diagramme  :) (The colours aren't the best but I'm colour deficient so perhaps this is just a problem for me.)
Have saved this for future reference. Hope that's okay mate?
 

CoptoGeek

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
2
Points
0
For anyone interested:

Oxford University Press has made available for free (Open Access Version for a limited time) a critical translation and study of the Chronicles of Seert, one of the important histories of the Church of the East. It dates from around the 10th Century.

The Chronicle of Seert
Christian Historical Imagination in Late Antique Iraq
Philip Wood
Oxford Early Christian Studies

About this book:

The history of Christianity is often only seen from a Mediterranean perspective, this study expands this story to include Mesopotamia, with glances further east to Iran, Central Asia and China.
* Makes use of rarely-used primary sources
* Blends historiography and cultural history
* Straddles the boundaries of the pre-Islamic and Islamic periods
* Combines the study of Syriac with the continuation of Syriac historiography into Arabic

A PDF version of this book is available for free in open access via www.oup.com/uk as well as the OAPEN Library platform, www.oapen.org. It has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 3.0 license and is part of the OAPEN-UK research project.

This monograph uses a medieval Arabic chronicle, the Chronicle of Seert, as a window into the Christian history of Iraq. The Chronicle describes events that are unknown from other sources, but it is most useful for what it tells us about the changing agendas of those who wrote history and their audiences in the period c.400-800.

By splitting the Chronicle into its constituent layers, Philip Wood presents a rich cultural history of Iraq. He examines the Christians' self-presentation as a church of the martyrs and the uncomfortable reality of close engagement with the Sasanian state. The history of the past was used as a source of solidarity in the present, to draw together disparate Christian communities. But it also represented a means of criticising figures in the present, whether these be secular rulers or over-mighty bishops and abbots.

The Chronicle gives us an insight into the development of an international awareness within the church in Iraq. Christians increasingly raised their horizons to the Roman Empire in the West, which offered a model of Christian statehood, while also being the source of resented theological innovation or heresy. It also shows us the competing strands of patronage within the church: between laymen and clergy; church and state; centre and periphery. Building on earlier scholarship rooted in the contemporary Syriac sources, Wood complements that picture with the testimony of this later witness.

Readership: Studenst and scholars of the early Church; of late antique Iraq; of early Islam

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199670673.do#.UhxvZawwr_k
 

hecma925

Orthodox Taliban
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
20,433
Reaction score
458
Points
83
Age
159
Location
The South
Anastasios said:
it seems that Nestorius himself did not teach that Jesus exists in two persons, but only that Mary was the mother of Jesus' flesh rather than His divinity.
Which is itself a heresy! Sheesh, read up more on theology, Matthew.

BTW, I would wager that you have never been to an Assyrian liturgy--I have, three times. It's nice in some respects, not so nice in others.

Anastasios
Thread resurrection!

In what ways?  I see in the Litrgy quoted in the link below, the priest strikes his own face at one point.  Any other examples?
http://www.liturgies.net/Liturgies/Other/LiturgyOfTheAssyrianChurch.htm
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,301
Reaction score
181
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
hecma925 said:
Anastasios said:
it seems that Nestorius himself did not teach that Jesus exists in two persons, but only that Mary was the mother of Jesus' flesh rather than His divinity.
Which is itself a heresy! Sheesh, read up more on theology, Matthew.

BTW, I would wager that you have never been to an Assyrian liturgy--I have, three times. It's nice in some respects, not so nice in others.

Anastasios
Thread resurrection!

In what ways?  I see in the Litrgy quoted in the link below, the priest strikes his own face at one point.  Any other examples?
http://www.liturgies.net/Liturgies/Other/LiturgyOfTheAssyrianChurch.htm
This is a recording of the Assyrian Liturgy celebrated in Australia.  I don't know how typical this is, but it's in English.  It doesn't seem to include the Liturgy of the Catechumens, so I think some of it was not recorded (I can't find it). 

This is a recording of the Liturgy which is divided in parts, possibly complete (haven't watched it all), but in Syriac. 
 

hecma925

Orthodox Taliban
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
20,433
Reaction score
458
Points
83
Age
159
Location
The South
Mor Ephrem said:
hecma925 said:
Anastasios said:
it seems that Nestorius himself did not teach that Jesus exists in two persons, but only that Mary was the mother of Jesus' flesh rather than His divinity.
Which is itself a heresy! Sheesh, read up more on theology, Matthew.

BTW, I would wager that you have never been to an Assyrian liturgy--I have, three times. It's nice in some respects, not so nice in others.

Anastasios
Thread resurrection!

In what ways?  I see in the Litrgy quoted in the link below, the priest strikes his own face at one point.  Any other examples?
http://www.liturgies.net/Liturgies/Other/LiturgyOfTheAssyrianChurch.htm
This is a recording of the Assyrian Liturgy celebrated in Australia.  I don't know how typical this is, but it's in English.  It doesn't seem to include the Liturgy of the Catechumens, so I think some of it was not recorded (I can't find it).  

This is a recording of the Liturgy which is divided in parts, possibly complete (haven't watched it all), but in Syriac.  
Thanks for posting.  The priest's homily in the first video is pretty good.  Kind of hard to see, but during communion, communicants kiss something, then put their hands near the censer.  What is it they are venerating?  The Gospel?
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,301
Reaction score
181
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
hecma925 said:
Kind of hard to see, but during communion, communicants kiss something, then put their hands near the censer.  What is it they are venerating?  The Gospel?
Yes.  There may be a Cross as well, I can't make it out but it is not uncommon.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
btw, there is a FB page for the Assyrian Eastern Orthodox Christians, i.e. those in communion with us EO
https://www.facebook.com/groups/AssyrianEasternOrthodoxChristians/140190479485053/?notif_t=group_activity
 

Ansgar

Archon
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
3,060
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
27
Funny, I thought members of the Assyrian Church crossed themselves from left to right.
 

hecma925

Orthodox Taliban
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
20,433
Reaction score
458
Points
83
Age
159
Location
The South
Ansgar said:
Funny, I thought members of the Assyrian Church crossed themselves from left to right.
I was struck by that too. Hmmm.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Mor Ephrem said:
hecma925 said:
Ansgar said:
Funny, I thought members of the Assyrian Church crossed themselves from left to right.
I was struck by that too. Hmmm.
No, they cross themselves like the EO.  They are unique in the non-EO East in that. 
Btw, the Latins of the West used to do it like we do.
 

Salpy

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
14,498
Reaction score
12
Points
38
hecma925 said:
Anastasios said:
it seems that Nestorius himself did not teach that Jesus exists in two persons, but only that Mary was the mother of Jesus' flesh rather than His divinity.
Which is itself a heresy! Sheesh, read up more on theology, Matthew.

BTW, I would wager that you have never been to an Assyrian liturgy--I have, three times. It's nice in some respects, not so nice in others.

Anastasios

Thread resurrection!

In what ways?  I see in the Litrgy quoted in the link below, the priest strikes his own face at one point.  Any other examples?
http://www.liturgies.net/Liturgies/Other/LiturgyOfTheAssyrianChurch.htm
Regarding the liturgy, I seem to recall there were issues regarding the anapora, but I don't recall exactly what they were.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Mor Ephrem said:
hecma925 said:
Ansgar said:
Funny, I thought members of the Assyrian Church crossed themselves from left to right.
I was struck by that too. Hmmm.
No, they cross themselves like the EO.  They are unique in the non-EO East in that. 
You mean the non-EO non-EC East. (That's sounds like a song I once knew, but I can't think of it.)
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,301
Reaction score
181
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Peter J said:
Mor Ephrem said:
No, they cross themselves like the EO.  They are unique in the non-EO East in that. 
You mean the non-EO non-EC East. (That's sounds like a song I once knew, but I can't think of it.)
I meant what I wrote and/or vice versa, it makes no difference. 
 
Top