Is the Assyrian Church of the East really Nestorian?

[George Australia]

The Assyrian Christians, after Ephesus, were referred to as "Nestorian," not because they followed Nestorias, but because they had long been believing the same position which Nestorias had chosen to follow.

Rubbish. That's what they themselves say about themselves. "Oh we're not Nestorians, we just refuse to call the Virgin Mary Theotokos". Kind of like "We're not monophysites, we are "miaphysites" who just refuse to confess the Two Wills."

If we are to accept Ephesus' condemnation of Assyrian Christians as divinely inspired, then we must also accept St. Cyril's Miaphysite Christology as divinely inspired.

OK, now you're really reaching.
Ephesus was an Oecumenical Synod.
St. Cyril was one Father of the Church.
The very fact that you consider them to be of equal authority simply shows:
1) The recalcitrance of the "miaphysites" is so deep seated that they consider St. Cyril to be some kind of "Divine Oracle".
2) Oecumenical Councils are meaningless to miaphysites, and therefore there can never be union between us.
3) You have no idea what you are talking about as usual.

[Anastasios]

I once posed the question to a prominent Orthodox ecumenist: "why do you afford Non Chalcedonians the title Orthodox based on a misunderstanding, but the Assyrians you still call Nestorian and heretics?"

"Because, Anastasios, that is exactly what they are."

Not only is the theology of the Assyrian Church completely heretical, but its faith life fully and totally reflects this--when I went to the Assyrian Church a few times, a man was very clear that we are wrong to believe that Mary is Theotokos.

Matthew, I find it interesting that you say "they are not Nestorians because they follow Nestorius, but because they believe the same thing." This is a sophistry--they are heretics nonetheless because they agree with a condemned heretic.

The Assyrian Church fully follows Nestorius--they even have an anathema dedicated against the "wicked" Cyril and have an anaphora attributed to "Saint" Nestorius--an ANAPHORA. Thus it is clear: THEY ARE HERETICS.

Anastasios

[EkhristosAnesti]

Matthew,

His Eminence Metropiltan Bishoy wrote a book in response to the Orthodox (Oriental) Church's decision to cease ecumenical dialogue with the Nestorian Church. It is titled "A Documentary on the Nestorian Church of the East: Its History, Present Condition and Doctrines"; if you live in Seattle, you should find a copy of the book at St. Mary's Coptic Orthodox Church bookstore.

P.S. Just ignore ozgeorge, he's just a bit upset because he has realised his Christ is a potential schizophrenic. I think the Orthodox Church needs to do a serious study of Chalcedonian will-Christology; if ozgeorge is to be taken as a serious representative of their faith, it would seem that they are so superficially harped on words that the whole underlying essence of their will-Christology is plain and simple Nestorianism. He should really take a more positive response to the subject of this thread, I think union between the Nestorian Church and his own, given his representation of it, is definitely warranted.

[George Australia]

Same old tired nonsense "Chalcedonian Christology is Nestorian". Yeah, EA, which is why Pensees, who is one of your mob, wants union with the Nestorians and the Eastern Orthodox Christians on this thread reject them... :ohvey:
Pensees, if you require a clearer understanding of Nestorianism as EA does see: http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewto ... 8957#38957

[EkhristosAnesti]

Same old tired nonsense "Chalcedonian Christology is Nestorian".

At least in contrast to the old tired nonsense "Oriental Orthodox Christology is Monophysite" claim, it actually holds water and can be evidenced historically.

Yeah, EA, which is why Pensees, who is one of your mob, wants union with the Nestorians and the Eastern Orthodox Christians on this thread reject them...

Pensees' developing and as of yet inadequate understanding of the intricacies of Orthodox Christology has nothing to do with the fact your Church's Christology, as presented by you, is quite compatible with theirs. In your own words, all your Church requires is a Two Will and Two Nature confession. The Nestorians will gladly acquiesce to that. A Two Will confession is adequate to represent their potentially schizophrenic Christ, especially in the absence of any qualification regarding the perfect union of the hypostatic expression of those two natural wills, and a Two Nature confession already constitutes the ancient expression of their Two Subject Christology as per the very words of Nestorius himself. Furthermore, if you knew anything about the history of Nestorianism and its development you would understand that there's strands of Nestorianism compatible with a confession of St. Mary as Theotokos, particularly by what Fr. Romanides terms the crypto-Nestorian movement headed by Theodoret of Cyrus, a Father of your Church.

[Pensees]

I'm more about finding peace and middleground than I am about division, and therefore wouldn't mind allowing Assyrian Christians to continue their denial of Mary the title "Theotokos," providing that it isn't intended to separate Christ into distinct persons, and that they tolerate our preference for the title.

I would like to know what the earliest historical references are to Mary as "Theotokos," and if it's something the Church has always insisted upon, then I could agree that the Assyrian Church of the East is heretical.

Peace.

[ioannis]

EkhristosAnesti: At least in contrast to the old tired nonsense "Oriental Orthodox Christology is Monophysite" claim...

The so-called non-chalcedonean churches are Monophysite.

Tell us, if you believe in the two natures of Christ, unconfused like we do, then why is it that you cannot say Christ-God did not suffer on the Holy Cross, and only his human nature suffered?