COE

[judge]

Hi paul (or others),

I have been re-reading this ...

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142">viewtopic.php?t=142</a><!-- l -->

and am wondering. If the COE had indicated it's independence as early as 410 a.d. what is the nature of it's relationship with the rest of the Christian churches at present and when did these relationships come about?

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Michael,

At present the CoE is not in communion with any other Christian denomination. It has remained as it always was, completely independent in jurisdiction, administration and practice.

[oozeaddai]

Shlama Akhi Michael,

At present the CoE is not in communion with any other Christian denomination. It has remained as it always was, completely independent in jurisdiction, administration and practice.

You actually should mention your negotations with Rome towards unificiation. You actually are in a state of semi-Communion, with the Chaldean Catholics.

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Addai

You actually should mention your negotations with Rome towards unificiation. You actually are in a state of semi-Communion, with the Chaldean Catholics.

The talks with the Chaldeans broke down a couple years ago. There is no such concept of semi-communion with Rome, they (Rome) are trying for full communion, which requires that any church recognize Papal jurisdiction on all matters. This of course is impossible with the Church of the East as we have always been independent of the Western Church, as they have been independent from the Eastern Church.

The extent of the current relationship with Rome is a recognition of the sacraments on *both* sides as being valid and recognized by the other side....it's quite different from "communion", which presupposes a jursidictional claim by Rome (which won't ever happen in my opinion.)

Even if the unthinkable were to happen and the Patriarch becomes a Catholic, he would be immediately deposed by the Synod which would elect the next Patriarch in his place who will keep us independent, as we have always been and as we wish to remain forever.

[oozeaddai]

Shlama Akhi Addai

You actually should mention your negotations with Rome towards unificiation. You actually are in a state of semi-Communion, with the Chaldean Catholics.

ok this must have been pretty recent. 3 years ago I visited a church of the east, locally. San Jose. I came from a church that had apostolic lines out of the assyrain church of the East. Anyway I was interested in attending to learn more about Aramaic, the Liturgy of the Holy apostles etc. (being a westerner that only had english translations etc.)

Anyway at the time, my bishop and I and my friend were told that by bishop Soro of the area that they were not looking for new members; because of the talks they were having with Rome (were afraid new comers might cause them problems that could affect their negotatiations).


Anyway I knew at the time the local Assyrians were encouraged to visit and fellowship with the Chaldeans with the hope that the two groups would be eventually be unified.

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Addai,

The words mentioned by Bishop Mar Bawai Soro (a good friend of mine) are generally the case with the CoE....it actively discourages members of other churches from joining it simply because it detests proseletyzing among fellow Christians - it is a charge it never wants leveled against it. We'd much rather take the message to those who aren't already Christians....that *was* the commission it was given....you know what I mean?

Unlike the CoE, other churches did actively proselytize and that's why you have the mess with the Chaldean church that you have today. Before the 16th-century "missionary efforts" (I intentionally enclosed the term in quotes) in Mesopotamia by a certain other Christian group, there was no such thing as a "Chaldean" church. Those people were part of the Church of the East. Same story on the Malabar coast of India. Remember that India is much further east of the Roman-Persian border than Mesopotamia is. Try to imagine how it came about that the majority of the CoE in India have now changed in "jurisdiction."

The result of all of this "missionary effort" (more accurately defined as the "proselytizing effort") rent the Church of the East apart and caused much hatred and bloodshed.....which is why it baffles me that we are even in talks with the group that did this "missionary effort" to begin with.

Sorry, but the truth has to be told. If it were up to me, I'd say "No thank you - we've felt the effects of your "communion" for 500 years now, and don't really care to continue it."

But that's just me. And who am I? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->

[oozeaddai]

Shlama Akhi Addai,

Unlike the CoE, other churches did actively proselytize and that's why you have the mess with the Chaldean church that you have today. Before the 16th-century "missionary efforts" (I intentionally enclosed the term in quotes) in Mesopotamia by a certain other Christian group, there was no such thing as a "Chaldean" church. Those people were part of the Church of the East. Same story on the Malabar coast of India. Remember that India is much further east of the Roman-Persian border than Mesopotamia is. Try to imagine how it came about that the majority of the CoE in India have now changed in "jurisdiction."
(

Yeah I have in the past compared Rome and the uniate churches to Bill Gates and microsoft trying to gobble up all the smaller software compainies like Oracle, Netscape etc. And I actually was a little worried that if the COE did get absorbed it might loose some of its heritage. Because I know the Chaldeans high level clergy look very latin in the garb they wear. And of course other things have to be standardized to fit Rome, so some aspects of the old church heritage could be lost basically because of the process of trying to fit in.