Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #1 
Western Christians often claim, that Nestorian Christianity is heretical, but that's wrong. The Nestorian Church is a Trinitarian church. The claim, that Nestorius believed, that Jesus Christ was split into two persons, is a misunderstanding. In the Bazaar of Heraclides, Nestorius wrote, that in Jesus Christ, the same one is twofold. Nestorius believed, that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, just as mainstream Christians does. Nestorius was condemned by the Council of Ephesos for rejecting calling Mary the Mother of God. Nestorius rejected calling Mary the Mother of God, because she is only the mother of the human nature of Jesus Christ, not of the divine nature of Jesus Christ.
The Nestorian Church accepts the Council of Chalcedon, which decided, that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, while rejecting the Council of Ephesos, which decided, that Mary is the Mother of God. The Nestorian Church is actually closer to Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity than Miaphysitism is, because Miaphysites believes, that Jesus Christ has only one nature, which is both divine and human.
The Nestorian Church is aniconic and it doesn't have auricular confession, but it isn't Protestant. It doesn't believe in justification by faith alone. It consider works important for salvation, just as the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church does.
The Nestorian Church was the state-supported Christian Church of the Sassanid Empire, which included Iran, Kurdistan and Iraq. In Iraq, Nestorian Christianity became the majority religion, while Iran and Kurdistan remained majority Zoroastrian. Kurds, who have converted to Christianity, have traditionally joined the Nestorian Church. Today, the Nestorian Church still exists. Most of its members are Assyrians, and the headquarters of the Nestorian Church is located in Hewler (Erbil) in Kurdistan. The Nestorian Church is the Kurdish national Christian church, just as the Miaphysite Coptic Church is the Egyptian national church, the Russian Orthodox Church is the Russian national church and the Anglican Church is the English national church. The Nestorian Church uses Aramaic in its liturgy, which makes attracting Kurdish converts difficult. The Nestorian Church ought to introduce Kurdish-language liturgy in addition to Aramaic-language liturgy.
Some members of this forum promote a branch theory, which claims, that the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church are the three branches of historical Christianity. The Nestorian Church and the Miaphysite Churches ought to be considered parts of historical Christianity, because they are Trinitarian churches possessing apostolic succession. 
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 439
Reply with quote  #2 
Who is arguing that:

- Nestorian churches are protestant?
- Nestorian churches don't have valid apostolic sees and aren't part of historical Christianity?

I'm a traditionalist Catholic, and I certainly recognize the respective sees. I quite honestly can't authoritatively state what Nestorians believe differently that Catholics/Orthodox, but my tradition says there is heresy and schism. Both really ought to be sorted out.

That's sadly unlikely under the current occupant of the Petrine see, who himself is a heretic, stating that God positively wills the multitude of contradictory and fractured religions int he world. I'd love to see a reconciliation with Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. It's scandalous that this day and age that Rome can tolerate entire heretical bishops conferences within her own ranks, and not welcome our separated brethren.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #3 
Because it is wrongly claimed, that Nestorius believed, that Jesus Christ is divided into two different persons, despite Nestorius himself rejecting that belief in the Bazaar of Heraclides and the Nestorian Church accepting the Council of Chalcedon. No one is arguing, that Nestorianism is Protestant, but there are some similarities between Nestorianism and Calvinism (aniconism and not having auricular confession). On this forum, many members claim, that Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and Anglicanism are the three branches of historical Christianity. 
I don't understand, that you claim, that the Nestorian Church is heretical, while the Oriental Orthodox Churches aren't heretical. The Oriental Orthodox Churches are Miaphysite, which means, that they believe, that Jesus Christ has one nature, which is both human and divine. The Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the Council of Chalcedon, which the Nestorian Church accepts, while accepting the Council of Ephesos, which the Nestorian Church rejects. I consider both the Nestorian Church and the Miaphysite churches parts of historical Christianity along with Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and Anglicanism.
The reason for the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Churches remaining separate isn't solely the Vatican refusing to reconciling with the Orthodox churches. Strong resistance to union with the Roman Catholic Church exists within the Orthodox churches. In the Russian Orthodox Church, opposition to union with the Roman Catholic Church is prevalent. If the Vatican proposed the Russian Orthodox Church joining the Roman Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church would certainly reject it, but the Greek Orthodox Church uniting with the Roman Catholic Church is quite likely to happen in the future.

AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 439
Reply with quote  #4 
I made no statement one way or the other about any heresy within the orthodox churches. There's plenty within my own church, just not its official position. And as I said before, I lack the theological acumen to really understand the nature of the heresy espoused, so I'm not going to discuss that further. I simply submit to the rulings within my church, done by men more knowledgeable than I.

I also reject that Anglicanism has a valid see, and I tend to group the Nestorians in with the Eastern Orthodox, Copts, etc. as separated brethren. Catholicism makes little formal distinction there. Regardless of heresy, there is schism. 

And I certainly don't put the blame entirely on Rome for the lack of reconciliation. I was merely stating that even if all other sees were willing to re-establish communion, Bergoglio would reject them.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas
I made no statement one way or the other about any heresy within the orthodox churches. There's plenty within my own church, just not its official position. And as I said before, I lack the theological acumen to really understand the nature of the heresy espoused, so I'm not going to discuss that further. I simply submit to the rulings within my church, done by men more knowledgeable than I.

I also reject that Anglicanism has a valid see, and I tend to group the Nestorians in with the Eastern Orthodox, Copts, etc. as separated brethren. Catholicism makes little formal distinction there. Regardless of heresy, there is schism. 

And I certainly don't put the blame entirely on Rome for the lack of reconciliation. I was merely stating that even if all other sees were willing to re-establish communion, Bergoglio would reject them.


If Bergoglio will reject Orthodox churches desiring union with the Roman Catholic Church, it's surprising. I thought, that he was a strong supporter of union with the Orthodox churches. At least, opposition to union with the Roman Catholic Church was an important reason for the failure of the proposed Orthodox Ecumenical Council on Crete in June 2016. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Constantinople Patriarchate disagrees on relations with the Roman Catholic Church in addition to disagreeing on Ukrainian autocephaly. 


As a traditionalist Catholic, what is your opinion of the other post-Vatican II popes? John Paul II (Wojtyla) and Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) were both quite conservative unlike Bergoglio.

AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 439
Reply with quote  #6 
First, my issue with Anglicanism isn't pre- or post- reformation, or even theology, it's ecclesiology. In his bull 'Apostolicae Curae', Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican ordinations "absolutely null and utterly void". That is a juridical ruling that I must abide by as a Catholic. 

My opinion of Pope John Paul II is mostly bad. He wasn't a formal heretic, but he poorly governed the church, allowing heresy, vice, and predation to fester. However, he led a life of heroic virtue, and the way in which he served to his death so visibly in an era where the culture of death had such a firm grasp. An ineffective pope, but a pious man. I simultaneously believe he is in heaven, but think it was unwise to canonize him. 

My view of Benedict XVI are more mixed, and would have been mostly positive had he not abdicated, and left the church to the wolves that he claimed to be in fear of fleeing. The best point was restoring the universal rights to use the traditional liturgy. It was good that he espoused the customs and dress of his office in ways lost since John XXIII, he tried to inject tradition into the new mass (though in retrospect, this was fraught. The new mass is defective). He tried to do something, but too little, about the abuse crisis. He tried to reconcile with the SSPX. He tried to reconcile with the East. And his abdication was a mess. If he were to do it, he should have tried to set up a better successor for the election, and then he should disappeared from public eye, never to be heard from again. Because of the confusing statements made by him around his resignation, and the fact that he still dresses as pope, has led some to think that his abdication was defective, and that he is still pope. Just a mess. 

Note: I strongly disagree strongly that either was conservative. They weren't heretics, and they were to the right of Bergoglio, but so was Stalin. They were both modernists. Ratzinger was one of the council fathers of Vatican II, and claimed that he didn't become more conservative with age, but that liberalism had moved the needle so far to the left of him. He still celebrated the Novus Ordo exclusively, he did not return to the papal tiara, and did not clean house of the vile monsters that surrounded him. He did not advocate for the return to Christendom, he did not attack secular humanism or the false gods of "freedom of religion" and liberty equating with license. Perhaps he was the more modern sort of neo-conservative, the type that draws a line in the sand saying "this far and no farther", and doing the same over and over as the left advances over his lines. True conservatism, to have any teeth, needs to be reactionary. Maybe there was a small amount of that in him, but not sufficient for our age. 
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #7 
Are you opposed to freedom of religion? I'm a strong supporter of freedom of religion, including the right to change religion. But I'm not opposed to the existence of state churches like the Russian Orthodox Church (which is the de-facto state church of Russia despite Russia formally being a secular state), the Greek Orthodox Church and the Church of England, provided that the state grants full freedom of religion, including the right to change religion. Even if you don't support freedom of religion in Christian countries, you ought to support it in non-Christian countries. Opposing freedom of religion in Christian countries legitimizes Islamists persecuting Christians in the Middle East. I'm a Nestorian Christian Kurd, and I strongly support secularism and freedom of religion in Kurdistan. The world must not forget the persecution of Christians and other non-Muslim religious minorities (e.g. Zoroastrians (Zoroastrianism is growing among the Kurds. 200000 Kurds are Zoroastrians), Yazidis and Baha'is) in the Middle East. The KRG (the autonomous regional government of South (Iraqi) Kurdistan) upholds freedom of religion in Kurdistan, including the right to convert from Islam. Most Middle Eastern states ban conversion from Islam. It is important to remember, that many Muslims are tolerant towards non-Muslims. 

Here is a link to an article about Nestorian Christology written by Louis Raphael Sako, the Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church: https://saint-adday.com/?p=19438

The Nestorian Church are more similar to the other pre-Reformation churches than to Protestantism except concerning icons and auricular confession. The Nestorian Church believes in works being important for salvation, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and considers apostolic succession and the sacraments important. The Nestorian Church practices open communion. It allows all baptized Christians, who believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, to participate in the Eucharist. If you visit Kurdistan, you will be welcome to participate in the Eucharist in a Nestorian Church. 

I personally like the Christology of Nestorius, because it emphasizes the distinction between the divine nature of Jesus Christ and the human nature of Jesus Christ, while not claiming, that Jesus Christ is divided into two persons.

I disagree with you about Latin Mass. I want the national language to be used as the liturgical. I want the Nestorian Church to become bilingual with Kurdish and Aramaic as liturgical languages instead of Aramaic being its sole liturgical language. While I dislike the Lutheran doctrine about justification by faith alone, Luther was right concerning using the national language as the liturgical language. 
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 439
Reply with quote  #8 
I'm opposed to the modern concept of religious freedom. Ideally, the state would recognize Christ as king, and have a state religion, preferably Catholicism. Though the state religion would not be compulsory, and other religions would not be suppressed unless they posed a threat to the common good, they would neither hold any privilege or recognition under law. But modern American and EU-style freedom of religion is frankly silly, and untenable. Error has no rights. Frankly, the left recognizes this, and is currently doing what it can to quash all resistance to its orthodoxy. See Brendan Eich. I've heard many people at various employers state that various beliefs held by all orthodox Christians should result in not only firing, but blacklisting from the industry. 

Freedom of religion eventually becomes an atheism that will crush its opponents under its boots. 

I don't see why you're continuously trying to convince me that Nestorianism is part of traditional, orthodox, apostolic Christianity. I've been convinced of that for as long as I've been aware of the tradition. And the Nestorian heresy from a Catholic perspective, compared to modern heresies today, is such a minor quibble. Compared to the wide-spread denial of hell, denial of the real presence, belief in universal salvation, etc. rampant within the Catholic church, the vast majority of the pre-reformation heresies are such minor theological squabbles. 
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas
I'm opposed to the modern concept of religious freedom. Ideally, the state would recognize Christ as king, and have a state religion, preferably Catholicism. Though the state religion would not be compulsory, and other religions would not be suppressed unless they posed a threat to the common good, they would neither hold any privilege or recognition under law. But modern American and EU-style freedom of religion is frankly silly, and untenable. Error has no rights. Frankly, the left recognizes this, and is currently doing what it can to quash all resistance to its orthodoxy. See Brendan Eich. I've heard many people at various employers state that various beliefs held by all orthodox Christians should result in not only firing, but blacklisting from the industry. 

Freedom of religion eventually becomes an atheism that will crush its opponents under its boots. 

I don't see why you're continuously trying to convince me that Nestorianism is part of traditional, orthodox, apostolic Christianity. I've been convinced of that for as long as I've been aware of the tradition. And the Nestorian heresy from a Catholic perspective, compared to modern heresies today, is such a minor quibble. Compared to the wide-spread denial of hell, denial of the real presence, belief in universal salvation, etc. rampant within the Catholic church, the vast majority of the pre-reformation heresies are such minor theological squabbles. 


What is your opinion on freedom of religion and secularism in majority Muslim countries like Kurdistan?

In USA, traditionalist  Christians often use freedom of religion to defend their rights. An example is the baker Jack Philips from Colorado, who refused to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple, who was acquitted by the US Supreme Court, because forcing him to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple would be a violation of his freedom of religion.





Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.