Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The East/West Dichotomy and the COE
#1
All,

From my own woefully uninformed perspective, which is wholly derived from experience (personal and witnessed) on this site alone, there seems a clear (almost denominational?) rift between two anatomical groups (East and West) that together comprise the Body of the COE. What???s remarkable about these distinctive schools of thought, at least in my present estimation, is the stark contrast in the underlying philosophies, particularly those involving modes/methods of dealing with people both inside and outside of the Church.

My question is two-fold in nature. First, I wonder whether my perception, that the western tradition is the more fundamentalist/dogmatic/intolerant (ETC) of the above-mentioned ???groups???, is aligned with reality; and secondly, if this is the case, does this divergent approach take root in the inter-textual differences and/or additional books recognized by the western canon?
Reply
#2
shlomo 'taint Paul,

'taint Paul Wrote:All,

From my own woefully uninformed perspective, which is wholly derived from experience (personal and witnessed) on this site alone, there seems a clear (almost denominational?) rift between two anatomical groups (East and West) that together comprise the Body of the COE. What???s remarkable about these distinctive schools of thought, at least in my present estimation, is the stark contrast in the underlying philosophies, particularly those involving modes/methods of dealing with people both inside and outside of the Church.

There are two types of Church divisions; the first is Roman Orthodox and the second is Roman Catholic. Thus when in the west when they speak of the Western and Eastern division in Christianity, that is what they are speaking about. These divisions were those of the Roman Empire which had an Eastern and Western part.

When you speak of the Eastern and Western division in the Syriac Churches, then you are speaking about those that are East of Beth Nahrin and West of Beth Nahrin. These Churches have Edessa (with extras school such as those Jerusalem and Antioch) as their common school of thought, prior to the division. This division initially entails those under the Persian Empire rule and those under the Eastern Roman Rule.
In this family you have the following divisions: COE Church which was under the Persian Empire, the Chaldean Church which broke off from the COE and joined the Universal Catholic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church which was under the Eastern Roman Empire, and the Syriac Catholic Church which broke off from the SOC and joined the Universal Catholic Church, and the Syriac Maronite Church which was under the Eastern Roman Empire but which resisted against it in favour of the Syriac Edessan Tradition (i.e. over that of the Byzatinian Greek Tradition) and is allied with the Universal Catholic Church.

My summary is so simplistic, that it doesn't do justice to the topic, but you can easily find this information online and through books.

'taint Paul Wrote:My question is two-fold in nature. First, I wonder whether my perception, that the western tradition is the more fundamentalist/dogmatic/intolerant (ETC) of the above-mentioned ???groups???, is aligned with reality; and secondly, if this is the case, does this divergent approach take root in the inter-textual differences and/or additional books recognized by the western canon?

Neither the Western nor the Eastern Syriac Traditions are intolerant of each other. The split in the Syriac Church happened due to outside influences and players. The differences in the Peshitta(o), which is the same Text, didn't cause the divisions in the Syriac Church. As matter of fact in the 12th Century the Maronite Patriarch sent a letter to the Assyrian Patriarch calling him my Syriac Brother.

The Syriac Maronite Church might be the midway point between the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. The Maronite Church continued to use the Estrangelo Script with Eastern Vowel Marks up until the 13th Century, and to a lesser extant afterwards.
The Syriac Maronite Church shares the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which we call Shara, with the Assyrian Church.

So to be able to give a definitive and more complete answer to your questions would require that I write a book on these topics, but I think it is clear from my responses that the answer isn't as cut and dry as one might expect.

push bashlomo,
keefa bar morun
Reply
#3
Thank you, Abudar.

Clearly, the E/W dichotomy is more complex than I originally thought, in that it's apparently departmentalized and further complicated via doctrinal distinctions between "Orthodox" (Eastern) and "Catholic" (Western) Christianity.

Am I correct in assuming, that despite arising and flourishing under vastly different cultural dynamics (the Persian V. Roman Empires), the COE and SOC are nonetheless closely aligned, and that it's their respective Catholic branches (if it's proper to refer to them as such) that have unquestionably gone the way of the west?
Reply
#4
shlomo oH 'taint Paul,

'taint Paul Wrote:Thank you, Abudar.

Clearly, the E/W dichotomy is more complex than I originally thought, in that it's apparently departmentalized and further complicated via doctrinal distinctions between "Orthodox" (Eastern) and "Catholic" (Western) Christianity.

I would say that the distinctions between Orthodox and Catholic Christianity are more political than religious.
Both recognize each others Mysteries (aka Sacraments) as valid.

'taint Paul Wrote:Am I correct in assuming, that despite arising and flourishing under vastly different cultural dynamics (the Persian V. Roman Empires), the COE and SOC are nonetheless closely aligned, and that it's their respective Catholic branches (if it's proper to refer to them as such) that have unquestionably gone the way of the west?

I would say that both the COE and the Syriac Maronite Church are closer to each other, when it comes to style of hymns and Edessan Traditions. But at the same time, although the SOC has adapted their hymns to be closer to a Byzantinian Style, nonetheless they share much in common with the COE.
I'm also willing to bet that if the Byzantine Empire (AKA Eastern Roman Empire) and the Roman Empire (Western Roman Empire) hadn't existed, then the Syriac Churches would most likely still be united around the Edessan Tradition.

As for the Churches linked to Rome; their Traditions were heavily Latinized all up to the Second Vatican Council, which put an end to Latinization. But the remnants of those who supported Latinization in these Churches continue on, and as such they try to promote the use of the vernacular languages and western Traditions over that of the original.
Despite that these Eastern Churches in union with Rome have done much work to restore their original Traditions, that existed prior to Latinization, as such they are on their way to restoring the original Glory of their respective Traditions.

P.S. The Syriac Maronite Church followed the Syriac Antiochan Tradition, rather than the Greek Antiochan Tradition.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply
#5
Hey 'Taint,

The Apostles sowed the Seed in two empires: the Roman and the Persian, that part of the universal church which found itself on the Persian side came to be known as the "Church of the East."

As Abudar stated, much of the differences in the churches are due to the geo-socio-political climate in which they grew. Both were of the same seed, and watered by the Apostles.

People usually think of the "Latin West" and "Greek East" when talking about the history of Christianity. In reality, the 3 forms were more like "Latin West", "Greek Middle" and "Aramaic East."

Some parts of the "Aramaic East" found themselves on the western side of the border, within Rome. So some groups within this category found themselves under heavy imperial pressure to conform to the "Greek Middle." Within these groups there can be found a sort of synthesis between Hellenization and Aramaic thought.

Those Aramaic groups within Persia were sort of immune to these pressures.

The main differences can be explained by a number of factors related to the above, including but not limited to the following:

(a) The Church of the East never had a "Constantine." It never became the official state religion of any part of Asia where it made inroads. It was, and still is, a persecuted minority (under Zoroastrianism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.)

(b) Due to its geographic isolation, the Church of the East was much less prone to changes that later occurred in the rest of the Church due to the forces of Hellenization. Therefore within the CoE you typically find a much more primitive and Semitic reality to the faith, especially in areas of catechesis, liturgical and theological formulations/expressions.

I'm not quite sure of what you mean by the acceptance of others, but all branches of the Church (including the CoE) are universal in nature and encompass all nations.
Reply
#6
Abudar and Paul,

So as not to promote the idea that I'm simply ignoring you, I feel obligated to say: not terribly unlike what happened in my initial thread on this site, further study promulgated by your respective posts has illuminated (for me) the misguided nature of my own foregoing posts in this thread.

Many Thanks.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)